North Carolina courts: annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts

X/3 ,
N.C. DOCUMENTS
CLEARINGHOUSE
MJS 17 1989
^orttj (Earolma (Etmrt&STATE LIBRARY
RALEIGH
1987-88
JWmml Report
of tlje
JVomtmstntttOe (Bfiicz of tlje Courts
The Cover: The Lincoln County Courthouse in Lincolnton, North Carolina was
completed in 1923. The rectangular structure is of finely dressed stone with three-story,
flat-roofed wings flanking a taller central block with a gabled roof. Matching pedi-mented
Doric porticoes on the front and rear of the center section, a Doric frieze along
the sides, and antefixes decorating the corners and roof ridge give the building its
distinctive Greek character. Lincolnton was established as the county seat of Lincoln
County in 1785.
NORTH CAROLINA COURTS
1987-88
ANNUAL REPORT
of the
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
JUSTICE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
The Honorable James G. Exum, Jr., Chief Justice
The Supreme Court of North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Chief Justice:
In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes, I herewith transmit the
Twenty-second Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July I ,
1987 — June 30, 1988.
Fiscal year 1987-88 marks the fourth consecutive year with significant increases in filings and disposi-tions
in both the Superior and District Courts. During 1987-88, as compared to 1986-87, total case filings
increased by 6.9% in Superior Court and by 8.1% in District Court; dispositions increased by 4.7% in
Superior Court and by 9.0% in District Court. Because total filings were greater than total dispositions,
more cases were pending at the end of the fiscal year than were pending at the beginning.
Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, and
writing required to produce this annual report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal
responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Information Services Division.
The principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of
superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. The Clerk of the Supreme Court
and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals provided the case data relating to our appellate courts.
Without the responsible work of many persons across the State this report would not have been possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Freeman, Jr.
Director
»f
May 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Parti
The 1987-88 Judicial Year in Review
The 1987-88 Judicial Year in Review 1
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations in 1987-88
Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 7
The Present Court System 10
Organization and Operations
The Supreme Court 14
The Court of Appeals . 25
The Superior Courts 30
The District Courts 33
District Attorneys 38
Clerks of Superior Court 42
Juvenile Services Division 45
Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services 47
Public Defenders 49
Appellate Defender 51
The N.C. Courts Commission 52
The Judicial Standards Commission 54
Part III
Court Resources in 1987-88
Judicial Department Finances
Appropriations 59
Expenditures 62
Receipts 64
Distribution of Receipts 65
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 68
Judicial Department Personnel 75
Part IV
Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1987-88
Trial Courts Case Data 79
Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 83
District Court Division Caseflow Data 143
Tables, Charts and Graphs
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations in 1987-88
Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the
Present Court System 10
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina
Trial Courts 13
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 14
Supreme Court, Caseload Inventory 16
Supreme Court, Appeals Filed 17
Supreme Court, Petitions Filed 17
Supreme Court, Caseload Types 18
Supreme Court, Submission of Cases to Decision Stage 19
Supreme Court, Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 19
Supreme Court, Disposition of Appeals 20
Supreme Court, Manner of Disposition of Appeals 21
Supreme Court, Type of Disposition of Petitions 21
Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Disposed of,
1982-83—1987-88 22
Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed,
1982-83—1987-88 23
Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Cases 24
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 25
Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 27
Court of Appeals, Manner of Case Dispositions 27
Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1982-83—1987-88 28
Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 29
Judges of Superior Court 30
District Court Judges 33
District Attorneys 38
Clerks of Superior Court 42
Chief Court Counselors 46
Guardian Ad Litem Division Coordinators 48
Public Defenders 49
Appejlate Defenders 51
The N.C. Courts Commission 52
The Judicial Standards Commission 54
Part III
Court Resources in 1987-88
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 59
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 60
General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of All
State Agencies and Judicial Department 61
General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations 62
Judicial Department Receipts 64
Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 65
Tables, Charts and Graphs
Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the
Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 66
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 69
Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 70
Assigned Counsel, Cases and Expenditures 71
Judicial Department Personnel 75
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
Part IV
Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1987-88
Caseload Trends 84
Caseload 85
Median Ages of Cases 86
Civil Cases Trends 87
Civil Case Filings By Case-Type 88
Civil Cases Inventory 89
Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition 93
Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, By County 94
Ages of Civil Cases Pending 98
Ages of Civil Cases Disposed 102
Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 106
Filings and Dispositions For Estates and Special Proceedings 107
Trends in Criminal Cases Ill
Criminal Case Filings By Case-Type 112
Inventory of Criminal Cases 113
Manner of Disposition of Felonies 117
Manner of Disposition of Felonies, By County 118
Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors 122
Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors, By County 123
Ages of Criminal Cases Pending 1 27
Ages of Criminal Cases Disposed 1 34
Filings and Dispositions 145
Filing and Disposition Trends of All Cases 146
Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 147
Civil Non-Magistrate Cases 148
Civil Non-Magistrate Filings By Case-Type 149
Civil Caseload Inventory 1 50
Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 1 54
Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, By County 155
Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Pending 162
Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Disposed 166
Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer Cases Pending 170
Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer Cases Disposed 174
Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions 178
Matters Alleged in Juvenile Petitions 180
Adjudicatory Hearings For Juvenile Matters 184
Trends of Criminal Cases 189
Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions 190
Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory 194
in
Tables, Charts and Graphs
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 198
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition, By County 199
District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Pending 203
District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Disposed 207
District Courts, Infraction Case Filings and Dispositions 211
IV
PARTI
THE 1987-1988 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
THE 1987-88 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's
Judicial Department is for the fiscal year which began
July 1, 1987 and ended June 30, 1988.
The Workload of the Courts
Case filings in the Supreme Court totaled 145 com-pared
with 196 filed during 1986-87. A total of 635 peti-tions
were filed in the Supreme Court, compared with 674
in 1986-87; and 67 petitions were allowed, compared with
99 in 1986-87.
For the Court of Appeals for 1 987-88, case filings were
1,351 compared with 1,288 for the 1986-87 year. Petitions
filed in 1987-88 totaled 446, compared with 458 during the
1986-87 year.
More detailed data on the appellate courts is included
in Part II of this Annual Report.
In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal)
increased by 6.9% to a total of 105,704 in 1987-88, com-pared
with 99,886 cases in 1986-87. Superior court case
dispositions also increased, to a total of 100,808, com-pared
with 96,308 in 1986-87. As, case filings during the
year exceeded case dispositions, the total number of cases
pending at the end of the year increased by 4,896.
Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital
commitment hearings, the statewide total of district court
filings (civil and criminal) during 1987-88 was 2,004,447,
an increase of 135,462 (7.2%) from 1986-87 filings of
1,868,985 cases. During 1987-88, a total of 608,845 infrac-tion
cases were filed along with a total of 419,407 criminal
motor vehicle cases, for a combined total of 1,028,252
cases. This combined total is an increase of 52,764 cases
(5.4%) above the 975,488 cases filed during 1986-87. Dur-ing
1987-88, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle cases in
the district courts increased by 46,579 (9.9%) to 514,710,
compared with 468,131 during 1986-87. Filings of civil
magistrate cases in the district courts increased by 29,881
(12.1%), to 277,336during 1987-88 compared with 247,455
during 1986-87.
Operations of the superior and district courts are sum-marized
in Part II of this Report, and detailed informa-tion
on the caseloads in the 100 counties and 34 judicial
districts is presented in Part IV.
1988 Legislative Highlights
Judicial, Prosecutorial, and Public Defender Districts
Chapters 1037 and 1056 of the 1987 Session Laws (1988
Session) make numerous conforming amendments to the
General Statutes, in light of the 1987 legislation on super-ior
court redistricting.
As a result of superior court redistricting, geographic
"districts" for the various components of the Judicial
Department are no longer necessarily coterminous. Ref-erences
in the General Statutes to a "judicial district" are
replaced by references to the "superior court district,"
"district court district," "prosecutorial district," and/ or
"public defender district" to which the particular statute
applies.
Chapter 1056 divides present Judicial Districts 12 and
1 6 into new Districts 1 2, 1 6 A, and 1 6B for the prosecutor-ial,
district court, and public defender districts. As a
result, these districts are coterminous with the corres-ponding
whole-country districts (or "sets of districts")
established in 1987 for the superior court division. The
legislation allocates existing personnel among these three
new districts; creates an additional district court judge-ship
effective July 1, 1989, allocated to district court
District 16 A; and effective January 1, 1989, establishes a
district attorney's office for a new prosecutorial District
16A and establishes two new public defender offices, for
public defender Districts 16A and 16B. In addition, effec-tive
January 1, 1989, the public defender office presently
serving Pitt and Carteret Counties in Judicial District 3 is
divided into two offices, for public defender districts 3A
(Pitt) and 3B (Carteret).
Chapter 1037 clarifies certain provisions of the 1987
redistricting legislation. New section G.S. 7A-41.1 (Chap-ter
1037, Section 2) specifies that there shall be one and
only one senior resident superior court judge for each
superior court "district" or "set of [superior court] dis-tricts."
A "set of districts" is defined to mean, in essence, a
group of districts that individually do not comprise an
entire county, but collectively are necessary to comprise
the entire county. A superior court "district" is a district
that does comprise one or more entire counties. Amend-ments
to G.S. 7A-47.3 (in Chapter 1037, Section 9) spec-ify
that all sessions of superior court are for the entire
county, regardless of how many superior court districts
there may be for the county; and that superior court
judges may be assigned under the rotation system to hold
the courts of either one "district" or one "set of districts."
Sessions of Superior Court Outside County Seat
Chapter 1037, Section 2.1, amending G.S. 7A-42 effec-tive
January 1, 1989, authorizes the senior resident super-ior
court judge of a county to order sessions of superior
court at any location outside the county seat when exigent
circumstances exist. The additional sessions must be
approved by the Chief Justice, and an order may issue
only after approval of the location and facilities by the
Administrative Office of the Courts, and after consulta-tion
with the Clerk and county officials. (Present provi-sions
of G.S. 7A-42, relating to sessions of Superior Court
outside the county seat in cities with a population of
35,000 or more, remain unchanged.)
Additional Seat of District Court
Effective July 1, 1989, Chapter 1075 authorizes an
additional seat of district court for district court District
3, in Havelock (Craven County).
Juvenile Code/Guardian ad Litem Revisions
Chapter 1090 amends several sections of the Juvenile
Coide, with the overall aim of imposing stricter standards
on removal of juveniles from the home and improving
THE 1987-88 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
protection of juveniles' rights. Effective June 1, 1989, the
services of the Guardian ad Litem Office within AOC are
extended to include appointment of a guardian ad litem,
in the discretion of the judge, in dependency cases. Effec-tive
immediately, the clerk's duties with regard to the
summons in juvenile cases are amended to specify that the
summons shall issue immediately after a petition is filed,
and tht the summons is to be delivered to any person
authorized to serve process (rather than to a law enforce-ment
officer in all cases). Also effective immediately,
specific findings are required before dispositional or other
orders may remove a juvenile from the home.
establish a schedule for paying the fees of attorneys
representing indigents on a per case basis, and report to
the 1989 Session of the General Assembly.
Death Penalty Resource Center
For fiscal 1988-89, the Death Penalty Resource Center
will be funded by AOC from the Indigent Persons' Attor-ney
Fee Fund, to a maximum of $191,505 (Chapter 1086,
Section 109). The Center is a four-position section of the
Appellate Defender's Office, previously funded from pri-vate
sources.
DWI, Commercial Vehicles
Chapter 1112 creates a new misdemeanor offense, driv-ing
while impaired in a commercial vehicle. A blood
alcohol content of 0.04 or more is sufficient to constitute
this offense (compared to a blook alcohol content of 0.10
or more driving while impired in other than a commercial
vehicle). The statutes for automatic, immediate ten-day
civil license revocation are also amended, to extend to
driving in a commercial vehicle with a blood alcohol
content of 0.04 or more. (Chapter 1 1 12 is effective June 1,
1989, and will expire June 30, 1989, in the absence of
action by the 1989 Session of the General Assembly.)
Investigative Grand Juries
Chapter 1 040 extends the authorization for investigative
grand juries in drug trafficking cases to July 1 , 1 99 1 . The
authorization for these special grand juries would other-wise
have expired October 1, 1988. In addition, an amend-ment
to G.S. 15A-622(h), effective October 1, 1988,
requires the concurrence of a committee of at least three
members of the Conference oif District Attorneys (in
addition to concurrence of the Attorneys General), before
a district attorney may request the convening of an inves-tigative
grand jury.
Indigent Persons' Attorney Fee Fund
For fiscal 1988-89, the General Assembly directed
AOC to allot portions of the funds in the Indigent Per-sons'
Attorney Fee Fund (approximately $13 million) to
each county, or to each district where superior and district
court districts are coterminous (Chapter 1086, Section
1 13, effective July 1, 1988). The allotment for each county
or district is to be in proportion to the numbers of indi-gent
persons in each county or district who were not
represented by a public defender during 1987-88.
Determination of an Indigent's Attorney's Fee
Chapter 1086, Section 113, amends G.S. 7A-458 to
specify that the fee of an attorney who represents an
indigent person is to be fixed by the judge who heard the
case, and deletes "the fee usually charged in similar cases"
from the factors the judge should consider when deter-mining
the fee. The General Assembly requested AOC to
Salaries, Longevity Pay, and Other Items
Funds were appropriated by the 1988 Session for a
4.5% pay raise for all officials and employees of the Judi-cial
Department.
The travel allowance for superior court judges under
G.S. 7A-44(a) was increased, effective January 1, 1989,
from $6,500 to $7,000 annually (Chapter 1086, Section
30).
Effective July 1, 1988, the pay for emergency justices
and judges is increased from $100 to $150 per day (Chap-ter
1086, Section 31).
Longevity pay was authorized for the Director of AOC
at the rate of longevity pay for superior court judges, and
longevity pay was authorized for the Assistant Director of
AOC at the rate of longevity pay for district court judges
(Chapter 1100, Section 15).
Longevity pay and salaries were increased for some
clerks of superior court (Chapter 1 100, Sections 16 and
17). The definition of "service" that is used to calculate a
clerk's longevity pay was expanded to include "service" as
an assistant clerk or as a superivsor of clerks within the
AOC. In addition, the salaries of some clerks were raised
by amending the population categories set forth in G.S.
7A-101(a), upon which clerks' salaries are based. As a
result, clerks in counties with population of 30,000 to
49,999 will be paid at a higher pay-category.
No funding for merit increases was provided. However,
Chapter 1086, Section 27, creates a 16-member Legisla-tive
Study Commission on a System of Merit Pay for
State Employees. The Commission is directed to report to
the 1989 Session of the General Assembly.
Employee Benefits
Retirement Benefits: Chapter 1 1 10 increases the retire-ment
benefits of state employees, by raising the accrual
rate (in G.S. 128-27) for calculating retirement benefits
from 1.58% to 1.60%; and allows accumulated sick leave
to be included in the amount of "creditable service"
earned for retirement or early retirement. Chapter 1 103,
amending G.S. 135-4, allows state employees to purchase
service credit toward retirement for extended perids of
leave without pay due to illness or injury.
Death Benefits: Chapter 1 108 increases the death
benefits payable for state employees. Death benefits
remain based on one year's salary, but the General
THE 1987-88 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
Assembly established a minimum benefit of $25,000
regardless of salary, and raised the maximum benefit
from $20,000 to $50,000. In addition, death benefits are
now payable regardless of an employee's age; previously,
the benefit was payable only if an employee died prior to
age 70.
New Positions
The 1987 Session of the General Assembly approp-riated
funds for the following new positions effective
during fiscal 1988-89: eleven new district court judge-ships,
one each for Districts 3, 5, 7 10, 11, 16, 18, 19B, 21,
25, and 26, to be filled in the 1988 general election; one
superior court judgeship for new District 16B, to be filled
in the 1988 general election; five new assistant district
attorneys, one each for districts 3A, 17A, 19A, 19B, and
21; three secretaries and ten victim-witness assistant posi-tions
for district attorney offices; five new magistrate
positions to be allocated in accordance with G.S. 7A-
171(c); 14 positions in the juvenile court counselor pro-gram;
ten secretarial positions for the ten new senior
resident superior court judgeships created effective Janu-ary
1, 1989; one court reporter; one deputy clerk; and two
secretaries in public defender offices.
The 1988 Session of the General Assembly approp-riated
or authorized the use of funds for the following
additional positions: a second regular superior court
judgeship for District 1 6B, to be appointed by the Gover-nor;
two new fully staffed public defender offices for new
public defender districts 16A and 16B; a new district
attorney's office effective January 1, 1989, for Prosecutor-ial
District 16A, with the district attorney position to be
filled in the 1988 general election; an additional district
courtjudgeship for District 16A, effective July 1, 1989, to
be filled pursuant to G.S. 7A-142; ten new deputy clerk
positions, funded from existing funds, rather than any
new appropriation; and four existing positions within the
Appellate Defender's Office, previously funded by private
sources, to be funded from the Indigent Persons' Attor-ney
Fee Fund in 1988-89.
Total Appropriations
The 1988 Session of the General Assembly approp-riated
a total of $177,774,981
for the 1988-89 fiscal year.
to the Judicial Department
PART II
COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION
AND OPERATIONS
• Historical Development of Court System
• Present Court System
• Organization and Operations in 1987-88
mA
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
From its early colonial period North Carolina's judicial
system has been the focus of periodic attention and adjust-ment.
Through the years, there has been a repeated
sequence of critical examination, proposals for reform, and
finally the enactment of some reform measures.
Colonial Period
Around 1700 the royal governor established a General
(or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute developed
over the appointment of associate justices. The Assembly
conceded to the King the right to name the chiefjustice but
unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the power to appoint
the associate justices. Other controversies developed con-cerning
the creation and jurisdiction of the courts and the
tenure of judges. As for the latter, the Assembly's position
was that judge appointments should be for good behavior
as against the royal governor's decision for life appoint-ment.
State historians have noted that "the Assembly won
its fight to establish courts and the judicial structure in the
province was grounded on laws enacted by the legislature,"
which was more familiar with local conditions and needs
(Lefler and Newsome, 142). Nevertheless, North Carolina
alternated between periods under legislatively enacted
reforms (like good behavior tenure and the Court Bill of
1746, which contained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary
court system) and periods of stalemate and anarchy after
such enactments were nullified by royal authority. A more
elaborate system was framed by legislation in 1767 to last
five years. It was not renewed because of persisting dis-agreement
between local and royal partisans. As a result,
North Carolina was without higher courts until after Inde-pendence
(Battle, 847).
At the lower court level during the colonial period, judi-cial
and county government administrative functions were
combined in the authority of the justices of the peace, who
were appointed by the royal governor.
After the Revolution
When North Carolina became a state in 1 776, the colon-ial
structure of the court system was retained largely intact.
The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the county
court which continued in use from about 1670 to 1868
—were still held by the assembled justices of the peace in
each county. The justices were appointed by the governor
on the recommendation of the General Assembly, and they
were paid out of fees charged litigants. On the lowest level
of the judicial system, magistrate courts of limited jurisdic-tion
were held by justices of the peace, singly or in pairs,
while the county court was out of term.
The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the General
Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Law
and Equity. A court law enacted a year later authorized
three superior court judges and created judicial districts.
Sessions were supposed to be held in the court towns of
each district twice a year, under a system much like the one
that had expired in 1772. Just as there had been little
distinction in terminology between General Court and
Supreme Court prior to the Revolution, the terms Supreme
Court and Superior Court were also interchangeable dur-ing
the period immediately following the Revolution.
One of the most vexing governmental problems con-fronting
the new State of North Carolina was its judiciary.
"From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary caused
complaint and demands for reform. "(Lefler and Newsome,
291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflicting judge opin-ions,
and insufficient number of judges, and lack of means
for appeal were all cited as problems, although the greatest
weakness was considered to be the lack of a real Supreme
Court.
In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court
judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court of Conference
to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the districts.
This court was continued and made permanent by subse-quent
laws. The justices were required to put their opinions
in writing to be delivered orally in court. The Court of
Conference was changed in name to the Supreme Court in
1 805 and authorized to hear appeals in 1810. Because of the
influence of the English legal system, however, there was
still no conception of an alternative to judges sitting
together to hear appeals from cases which they had them-selves
heard in the districts in panels of as few as two judges
(Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an independent three-judge
Supreme Court was created for review of cases decided at
the Superior Court level.
Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in each
county were made mandatory in 1806, and the State was
divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six judges
were to sit in rotation, two judges constituting a quorum as
before.
The County Court of justices of the peace continued
during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of
local government.
After the Civil War
Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it
more democratic were made in 1868. A primary holdover
from the English legal arrangement - the distinction
between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. The
County Court's control of local government was abolished.
Capital offenses were limited to murder, arson, burglary
and rape, and the Constitution stated that the aim of
punishment was "not only to satisfy justice, but also to
reform the offender, and thus prevent crime". The member-ship
of the Supreme Court was raised to five, and the
selection of the justices (including the designation of the
chiefjustice) and superior court judges (raised in number to
12) was taken from the legislature and given to the voters,
although vacancies were to be filled by the governor until
the next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — The County Court of which three justices of the peace
constituted a quorum was eliminated. Its judicial
responsibilities were divided between the Superior Courts
and the individual justices of the peace, who were retained
as separate judicial officers with limited jurisdiction.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868
Constitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme
Court justices to three and the Superior Court judges to
nine. The General Assembly was given the power to
appoint justices of the peace, instead of the governor.
Most of the modernizing changes in the post-Civil War
Constitution, however, were left, and the judicial struc-ture
it had established continued without systematic
modification through more than half of the 20th cen-tury.
(A further constitutional amendment approved by
the voters in November, 1888, returned the Supreme
Court membership to five, and the number of superior
court judges to twelve.)
Before Reorganization
A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time sys-tematic
court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. This
accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the court
system was most evident at the lower, local court level,
where hundreds of courts specially created by statute
operated with widely dissimilar structure and jurisdiction.
By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent
major reforms was begun, the court system in North
Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme Court,
with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior court, with
general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statutory courts
of limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of the peace and
mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction.
At the superior court level, the State had been divided
into 30 judicial districts and 21 solicitorial districts. The
38 superior court judges (who rotated among the coun-ties)
and the district solicitors were paid by the State.
The clerk of superior court, who was judge of probate
and often also a juvenile judge, was a county official.
There were specialized branches of superior court in
some counties for matters like domestic relations and
juvenile offenses.
The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher
of these local court levels were more than 180 recorder-type
courts. Among these were the county recorder's
courts, municipal recorder's courts and township re-corder's
courts; the general county courts, county crim-inal
courts and special county courts; the domestic rela-tions
courts and the juvenile courts. Some of these had
been established individually by special legislative acts
more than a half-century earlier. Others had been created
by general law across the State since 1919. About half
were county courts and half were city or township
courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors (mostly
traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and sometimes
civil matters. The judges, who were usually part-time,
were variously elected or appointed locally.
At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had sim-ilar
criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties
up to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the
peace also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These
court officials were compensated by the fees they
exacted, and they provided their own facilities.
Court Reorganization
The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revi-sion
of the court system received the attention and sup-port
of Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who
encouraged the leadership of the North Carolina Bar
Association to pursue the matter. A Court Study Com-mittee
was established as an agency of the North Carol-ina
Bar Association, and that Committee issued its
report, calling for reorganization, at the end of 1958. A
legislative Constitutional Commission, which worked
with the Court Study Committee, finished its report
early the next year. Both groups called for the structur-ing
of an all-inclusive court system which would be
directly state-operated, uniform in its organization
throughout the State and centralized in its administra-tion.
The plan was for a simplified, streamlined and
unified structure. A particularly important part of the
proposal was the elimination of the local satutory courts
and their replacement by a single District Court; the
office of justice of the peace was to be abolished, and
the newly fashioned position of magistrate would func-tion
within the District Court as a subordinate judicial
office.
Constitutional amendments were introduced in the
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were
reintroduced and approved at the 1961 session. The
Constitutional amendments were approved by popular
vote in 1962, and three years later the General Assem-bly
enacted statutes to put the system into effect by
stages. By the end of 1970 all of the counties and their
courts had been incorporated into the new system,
whose unitary nature was symbolized by the name,
General Court of Justice. The designation of the entire
20th century judicial system as a single, statewide
"court," with components for various types and levels
of caseload, was adapted from North Carolina's earlier
General Court, whose full venue extended to all of the
17th century counties.
After Reorganization
Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has con-tinued.
In 1965, the Constitution was amended to pro-vide
for the creation of an intermediate Court of
Appeals. It was amended again in 1972 to allow for the
Supreme Court to censure or remove judges upon the
recommendation of a Judicial Standards Commission.
As for the selection of judges, persistent efforts were
made in the 1970's to obtain legislative approval of
amendments to the State Constitution, to appoint judges
according to "merit" instead of electing them by popu-lar,
partisan vote. The proposed amendments received
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
the backing of a majority of the members of each Hinsdale, C. E., County Government in North Carolina. 1965
house, but not the three-fifths required to submit con- Edition.
, , r . . Ti Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina:
stitutional amendments to a vote of the people. It seems The History ofa southern State. 1963 Edition.
likely that this significant issue will be before the Sanders, John L., Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A
General Assembly again for consideration. Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of
Government.
Major Sources Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold, North Carolina Courts of
Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History of the Supreme Court Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular
(Delivered in 1888). 1 North Carolina Reports 835-876. 1973.
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal
Recommendations
from Judicial
Standards Commission
SUPREME
COURT
7 Justices
Original Jurisdiction
All felony cases; civil
cases in excess of
$10,000*
Final Order of
Utilities Commission in
General Rate Case
COURT OF
APPEALS
12 Judges
SUPERIOR
COURTS
74 Judges
Decisions of
Most Administrative
Agencies
Original Jurisdiction
Probate and estates,
special proceedings
(condemnations,
adoptions, partitions,
foreclosures, etc.)
criminal cases
(for trial de novo)
*(2>
\l
civil cases
\ DISTRICT
COURTS
151 Judges
Clerks of Superior
Court
(100)
Magistrates
(640)
Decisions of Industrial
Commission, State Bar,
Property Tax Commission,
Commissioner of Insurance,
Bd. of State Contract Appeals
Original Jurisdiction
Misdemeanor cases not
assigned to magistrates;
probable cause hearings;
civil cases $10,000* or
less; juvenile proceedings;
domestic relations;
involuntary commitments
Original Jurisdiction
Accept certain misdemeanor
guilty pleas: worthless check
misdemeanors $1,000** or less;
small claims $1,500 or less
( 1
)
Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving comstitutional
questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may review Court of Appeals
decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance.
(2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals.
(3) As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in criminal cases in which the defendent has been sentenced to death or life
imprisonment, and in civil cases involving the involuntary annexation of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or more population. In all other cases
appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the trial courts in cases where delay
would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. (Under G.S. 7A-27, effective July 24, 1987, appeals in criminal cases
as a matter of right are limited to first degree murder cases in which there is a sentence of death or life imprisonment.)
*The district and superior courts have concurrent original jurisdiction in civil actions (G.S. 7A-242). However, the district court division is the proper
division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less; and the superior court division is the proper division
for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (G.S. 7A-243).
**Magistrate jurisdiction in worthless check cases increased from $500 to $1,000 effective October 1, 1987 (G.S. 7A-273).
10
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab-lishes
the General Court of Justice which "shall constitute
a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction,
operation, and administration, and shall consist of an
Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a
District Court Division."
The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals.
The Superior Court Division is comprised of the super-ior
courts which hold sessions in the county seats of the
100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped into
judicial districts (34 at the present time), and one or more
superior court judges are elected for each of the judicial
districts. A clerk of the superior court for each county is
elected by the voters of the county.
The District Court Division is comprised of the district
courts. The General Assembly is authorized to divide the
State into a convenient number of local court districts and
prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but district
court must sit in at least one place in each county. The
General Assembly has provided that districts for pur-poses
of the district court are coterminous with superior
court judicial districts. The Constitution also provides for
one or more magistrates to be appointed in each county
"who shall be officers of the district court."
The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains
the term, "judicial department," stating that "The General
Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial
department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully
pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the govern-ment,
nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other
than as permitted by this Article." The terms, "General
Court of Justice" and "Judicial Department" are almost,
but not quite, synonymous. It may be said that the Judi-cial
Department encompasses all of the levels of court
designated as the General Court of Justice plus all admin-istrative
and ancillary services within the Judicial Depart-ment.
The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between
the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of
courts are illustrated in the chart on the opposite page.
Criminal Cases
Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original juris-diction
of the district courts. Some misdemeanor offenses
are tried by magistrates, who are also empowered to
accept pleas of guilty to certain offenses and impose fines
in accordance with a schedule set by the Conference of
Chief District Court Judges. Most trials of misdemeanors
are by district court judges, who also hold preliminary,
"probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of felony
cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior courts.
Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the district
court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury
available at the district court level; appeal from the dis-trict
courts' judgments in criminal cases is to the superior
courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in life-imprisonment
or death sentence cases (which are appealed
to the Supreme Court), appeal from the superior courts is
to the Court of Appeals.
Civil Cases
The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges of
probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and
estates matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over
such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, con-demnations
under the authority of eminent domain, and
foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the
superior court.
The district courts have original jurisdiction in juvenile
proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for invol-untary
commitment to a mental hospital, and are the
"proper" courts for general civil cases where the amount
in controversy is $10,000 or less. If the amount in con-troversy
is $1,500 or less and the plaintiff in the case so
requests, the chief district court judge may assign the case
for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates' decisions
may be appealed to the district court. Trial by jury for
civil cases is available in the district courts; appeal from
the judgment of a district court in a civil case is to the
North Carolina Court of Appeals.
The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of
general civil cases where the amount in controversy is
more than $10,000. Appeals from decisions of most
administrative agencies are first within the jurisdiction of
the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in
civil cases is to the Court of Appeals.
Administration
The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of
the other courts of the General Court of Justice." (G.S.
7A-32(b)).
In addition to this grant of general supervisory power,
the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain
Judicial Department officials with specific powers and
responsibilities for the operation of the court system. The
Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing
rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts
and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supplement
those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court designates one of the judges of the Court
of Appeals to be its Chief Judge, who in turn is responsi-ble
for scheduling the sessions of the Court of Appeals.
The chart on page 1 1 illustrates specific responsibilities
for administration of the trial courts vested in Judicial
Department officials by statute. The Chief Justice
appoints the Director and an Assistant Director of the
Administrative Office of the Courts; this Assistant Direc-tor
also serves as the Chief Justice's administrative assist-ant.
The schedule of sessions of superior court in the 100
counties is set by the Supreme Court; assignment of the
State's rotating superior court judges is the responsibility
of the Chief Justice. Finally, the Chief Justice designates a
chief district court judge for each of the State's 34 judicial
11
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
districts from among the elected district court judges of
the respective districts. These judges have responsibilities
for the scheduling of the district courts and magistrates'
courts within their respective districts, along with other
administrative responsibilities.
The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible
for direction of non-judicial, administrative and business
affairs of the Judicial Department. Included among its
functions are fiscal management, personnel services,
information and statistical services, supervision of record
keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, liaison with the
legislative and executive departments of government,
court facility evaluation, purchase and contract, educa-tion
and training, coordination of the program for provi-sion
of legal counsel to indigent persons, juvenile proba-tion
and after-care, trial court administrator services,
planning, and general administrative services.
The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk
for both the superior and district courts. Until 1980, the
clerk also served as chairman of the county's calendar
committee, which set the civil case calendars. Effective
July 1, 1980, these committees were eliminated; day-to-day
calendaring of civil cases is now done by the clerk of
superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in some
districts, under the supervision of the senior resident
superior court judge and chief district court judge. The
criminal case calendars in both superior and district
courts are set by the district attorney of the respective
district.
12
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts
CHIEF JUSTICE
and
SUPREME COURT
l
Administrative
Office of
the Courts
i
(35) District
Attorneys
(34) Senior Resident
Judges; (100) Clerks
of Superior Court
SUPERIOR
COURTS
(34) Chief District
Court Judges
DISTRICT
COURTS
'The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other trial
courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court judges, who
rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice.
2The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the
pleasure of the Chief Justice.
3The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other trial
courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 34 judicial districts from the judges elected in
the respective districts.
4The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the
Judicial Department.
5The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and
the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their respective
courts.
6 In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping
functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the supervision of the
chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees submitted by the clerk
of superior court.
13
THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
(As of June 30, 1988)
Chief Justice
JAMES G. EXUM, JR.
LOUIS B. MEYER
BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR.
HARRY C. MARTIN
Associate Justices
HENRY E. FRYE
JOHN WEBB
WILLIS P. WHICHARD
Retired Chief Justices
WILLIAM H. BOBBITT
SUSIE SHARP
JOSEPH BRANCH
I. BEVERLY LAKE
J. FRANK HUSKINS
Retired Justices
DAVID M. BRITT
Clerk
J. Gregory Wallace
Librarian
Frances H. Hall
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Supreme Court
At the apex of the North Carolina court system is the
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil
and criminal cases on appeal. The Chief Justice and six
associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by the
voters of the State. There are two terms of the Supreme
Court each year: a Spring Term commencing on the first
Tuesday in February and a Fall Term commencing on the
first Tuesday in September. The Court does not sit in
panels. It sits only en banc, that is, all members sitting on
each case.
Jurisdiction
The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the
Supreme Court is in the censure and removal of judges
upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judicial
Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jurisdic-tion
includes:
- cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals
(cases involving substantial constitutional ques-tions
and cases in which there has been dissent in
the Court of Appeals);
- cases on appeal by right from the Utilities Commis-sion
(cases involving final order or decision in a
general rate matter);
- criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior
courts (cases in which the defendant has been sen-tenced
to death or life imprisonment); and
- cases in which review has been granted in the
Supreme Court's discretion.
Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly
from the trial courts may be granted when delay would
likely cause subsantial harm or when the workload of the
Appellate Division is such that the expeditious adminis-tration
of justice requires it. However, most appeals are
heard only after review by the Court of Appeals.
Administration
The Supreme Court has general power to supervise and
control the proceedings of the other courts of the General
Court of Justice. The Court has specific power to pre-scribe
the rules of practice and procedure for the trial
court divisions, consistent with any rules enacted by the
General Assembly. The schedule of superior court ses-sions
in the 100 counties is approved yearly, by the
Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, the
Librarian of the Supreme Court Library, and the Appel-late
Division Reporter are appointed by the Supreme
Court.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and
an Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the
Chief Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from
among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief
District Court Judge from among the district judges in
each of the State's 34 judicial districts. He assigns superior
court judges, who regularly rotate from district to district,
to the scheduled sessions of superior court in the 100
counties, and he is also empowered to transfer district
court judges to other districts for temporary or special-ized
duty. The Chief Justice appoints three of the seven
members of the Judicial Standards Commission—a judge
of the Court of Appeals who serves as the Commission's
chairman, one superior court judge and one district court
judge. The Chief Justice also appoints six of the 24 voting
members of the N.C. Courts Commission: one associate
justice of the Supreme Court; one Court of Appeals
judge; two superior court judges; and two district court
judges. The Chief Justice also appoints the Appellate
Defender, and the Chief Hearing Officer of the Office of
Administrative Hearings.
Expenses of the Court, 1987-88
Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the
1987-88 fiscal year amounted to $2,352,654, an increase of
3.1% over total 1986-87 expenditures of $2,281,161.
Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 1 987-88 con-stituted
1.4% of all General Fund expenditures for the
operation of the entire Judicial Department during the
fiscal year.
Case Data, 1987-88
A total of 309 appealed cases were before the Supreme
Court during the fiscal year, 164 that were pending on
July 1,1987 plus 145 cases filed through June 30, 1988. A
total of 216 of these cases were disposed of, leaving 93
cases pending on June 30, 1988.
A total of 801 petitions (requests to appeal) were before
the Court during the 1987-88 year, with 726 disposed
during the year and 76 pending as of June 30, 1988. The
Court granted 67 petitions for review during 1987-88
compared to 99 for 1986-87.
More detailed data on the Court's workload is pres-ented
on the following pages.
15
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Supreme Court Caseload Inventory
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Petitions for Review
Civil domestic
Juvenile
Other civil
Criminal
Postconviction remedy
Administrative agency decision
Total Petitions for Review
Pending Pending
7/1/87 Filed Disposed 6/30/88
5 5 8 2
1 2 3
63 292 313 42
78 298 351 25
10 35 39 6
9 3 12
166 635 726 75
Appeals
Civil domestic
Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals
Juvenile
Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals
Other civil
Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment
Other criminal
Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals
Petitions for review granted that became postconviction
remedy cases
Administrative agency decision
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of
administrative agency decision
Total Appeals
Other Proceedings
Rule 16(b) additional issues re dissent
Extraordinary writs
Requests for advisory opinion
Rule amendments
Motions
Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear
3 3
2 3 4 I
22 15 29 8
22 41 40 23
24 11 14 21
69 47 93 23
5 1! 11 5
11 9 11 9
6 2 5 3
3 3 6
164 145 216 93
8 8
58 58
1 1
17 17
589 589
1 18 15 4
Total Other Proceedings 691 688
16
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1987-88
APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1987 - JUNE 30, 1988
CRIMINAL-DEATH
CRIMINAL LIFE
ADMIN. AGENCY
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
OTHER CIVIL
OTHER CRIMINAL
PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1987 - JUNE 30, 1988
OTHER CIVIL
JUVENILE 0.3%(2)
CRIMINAL
ADMIN. AGENCY 0.5% (3)
DOMESTIC RELATIONS 1%(5)
POST-CONVICTION
17
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Supreme Court Caseload Types by Judicial District and Division
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Judicial Judicial Total Death Life Other Civil Other Cases
Division District Cases Cases Cases Criminal Cases Cases Disposed
I 1 3 3 2
2 7 5 ! 1 4
3A 4 1 2 1 3
3B 3 1 2 3
4 12 2 5 1 4 8
5 13 1 11 1 7
6 9 3 4 2 5
7 6 1 2 3 5
X 8 6 2 6
SUBTOTAL 65 8 39 4 84 43
II 9 6 1 2 2 1 4
10 48 3 5 5 19 16 35
II 6 2 1 3 4
12 19 1 13 4 1 12
13 2 1 1 1
14 14 7 4 3 11
15A 7 1 3 1 2 6
15B 11 5 6 6
16 11 4 6
16A 1 1
SUBTOTAL 125 15 42 17 35 16 85
III 17A 2 2 1
17B 3 1 1 1 3
18 20 1 4 2 13 15
19A 6 1 4 1 3
19B II 1
20 90 1 4 4 4
21 2! 15 6 8
22 16 5 6 1 4 12
23 7! 5 2 6
SUBTOTAL 85 11 38 4 32 52
IV 24 3 2 1 2
25 10 3 3 1 3 3
26 14 2 4 8 6
27A 10 1 6 1 2 7
27B 2 1 1 2
28 11 I 4 1 6 6
29 12 3 81 1 5
30 6 1 3 1 I 4
SUBTOTAL 68 9 27 10 22 35
TOTALS 343 43 146 35 103 16 216
NOTE: Includes life and death sentence cases awaiting Record on Appeal and not yet formally docketed.
18
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage in Supreme Court
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Cases Argued
Civil
Criminal
Total cases argued
70
119
189
Submissions Without Argument
By motion of the parties (Appellate Rule 30 (d))
By order of the Court (Appellate Rule 30 (f))
Total submissions without argument
Total Cases Reaching Decision Stage
7
7
196
Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings by the Supreme Court
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Petitions for Review Granted* Denied
Dismissed/
Withdrawn
Total
Disposed
Civil Domestic
Juvenile
Other Civil
Criminal
Postconviction Remedy
Administrative Agency Decision
3
48
13
3
20
5
189
244
12
3
2
2
8
10
27
25
7
245
267
39
6
Total Petitions for Review 67 473 49 589
Other Proceedings
Rule 16(b) — Additional Issues
Extraordinary Writs
Advisory Opinion
Rule Amendments
Motions
8
58
1
17
489
Total Other Proceedings
"GRANTED" includes orders allowing relief without accepting the case as a full appeal.
573
19
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Signed Opinions
Reversed Total
Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed
Civil domestic 1 1 2 2 6
Juvenile
Other civil 16 5 5 2:; it 54
Criminal (death sentence) 6 4 d 14
Criminal (life sentence) 71 13 6 90
Other criminal 5 4 6 15
Postconviction remedy (!
Administrative agency decision 2 7 9
Totals 101 1! 60 10 188
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Decision
Reversed Total
Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed
Civil domestic 1 i) 1
Juvenile
Other civil 12 1 13
Criminal (death sentence)
Criminal (life sentence) 1
Other criminal 5 5
Postconviction remedy {»
Administrative agency decision 1 1 2
Totals 20 22
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals by Dismissal or Withdrawal
Case Types
Dismissed or
Withdrawn
Civil domestic
Juvenile
Other civil
Criminal (death sentence)
Criminal (life sentence)
Other criminal
Post-conviction remedy
Administrative agency decision
Totals
20
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1987-88
MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1987-JUNE 30, 1988
DISMISSED/WITHDRAWN 3%
(6)
OPINIONS
PER CURIAM DECISIONS
TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1987-JUNE 30, 1988
GRANTED
DENIED
DISMISSED/ WITHDRAWN
2!
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Appeals Docketed and Disposed of During the Years, 1982-83—1987-88
400
H Appeals Docketed
Appeals Disposed of
300
N
II
M
B
E
R
O
1
C
A
s
I
s
200
100
209
1982-83
20
1
I92
227
177
1984-84 1984-85
220
209
1985-86
200
196
216
145
1986-87 1987-88
22
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years, 1982-83—1987-88
800
600
N
11
M
B
E
R
O
h
C
A
S
I
s
400
200
H Petitions Docketed
Petitions Allowed
1982-83
70
1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87
67
1987-88
23
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Supreme Court Processing Time for Disposed Cases
(Total time in days from docketing to decision)
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Civil domestic
Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals
Juvenile
Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals
Other civil
Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment
Other criminal
Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals
Petitions tor review granted that became postconviction remedy cases
Administrative agency decision
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative
agency decision
Total appeals
Number (Days) (Days)
of Cases Median Mean
3 190 197.3
4 271 238.0
29 184 222.4
40 186 200.9
14 462 475.4
93 282 495.2
II 188 236.0
II 337 325.6
5 273 363.4
6 154 219.0
216 256 361.0
24
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA*
Chief Judge
R.A. HEDRICK
GERALD ARNOLD
HUGH A. WELLS
CHARLES L. BECTON
CLIFTON E. JOHNSON
EUGENE H. PHILLIPS
SIDNEY S. EAGLES, JR.
Judges
SARAH PARKER
JACK COZORT
ROBERT F. ORR
K. EDWARD GREENE
DONALD L. SMITH
HUGH B. CAMPBELL
FRANK M. PARKER
EDWARD B. CLARK
Retired Judges
ROBERT M. MARTIN
CECIL J. HILL
MAURICE BRASWELL
Clerk
FRANCIS E. DAIL
*Asof 30 June 1988
25
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Court of Appeals
The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's
intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the
appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The
Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other
locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme
Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular
or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected by
popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for the
Court is designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court and serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the
Chief Justice.
Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the
Chief Judge responsible for assigning members of the
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal number
of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge presides
over the panel of which he or she is a member and desig-nates
a presiding judge for the other panels.
One member of the Court of Appeals, designated by the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serves as chairman of
the Judicial Standards Commission.
Jurisdiction
The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals con-sists
of cases appealed from the trial courts. The Court
also hears appeals directly from the Industrial Commis-sion;
certain final orders or decisions of the North Caro-lina
State Bar; and the Commissioner of Insurance; the
State Board of Contract Appeals; and appeals from cer-tain
final orders or decisions of the Property Tax Com-mission.
(Appeals from the decisions of other administra-tive
agencies lie first within the jurisdiction of the superior
courts.)
In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial
Standards Commission to censure or remove from office
a justice of the Supreme Court, the (non-binding) recom-mendation
would be considered by the Chief Judge and
the six judges next senior in service on the Court of
Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as the Commis-sion's
chairman). Such seven-member panel would have
sole jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recom-mendation.
Expenses of the Court, 1987-88
Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the
1987-88 fiscal year totalled $3,158,383, an increase of
7.2% over 1986-87 expenditures of $2,947,010. Expendi-tures
for the Court of Appeals during 1987-88 amounted
to 1 .9% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of
the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year.
Case Data, 1987-88
A total of 1,351 appealed cases were filed before the
Court of Appeals during the period July 1, 1987 —
June 30, 1988. A total of 1,272 cases were disposed of
during the same period. During 1987-88, a total of 446
petitions and 1 ,39 1 motions were filed before the Court of
Appeals.
Further detail on the workload of the Court of Appeals
is shown in the tables and graphs on the following pages.
26
FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Cases on Appeal
Civil cases appealed from district courts
Civil cases appealed from superior courts
Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies
Criminal cases appealed from superior courts
Total
Filings
309
515
44
483
1,351
Dispositions
1,272
Petitions
Allowed
Denied
Remanded
Total 446
71
375
446
Motions
Allowed
Denied
Remanded
Total
Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions
961
430
1,391 1,391
3,188 3,109
MANNER OF CASE DISPOSITIONS COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Cases Disposed by Written Opinion
Cases Affirmed
Cases Cases In Part, Reversed Other Cases Total Cases
Affirmed Reversed In Part Disposed Disposed
833 252 85 102 1,272
27
FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
Fiscal Years 1982-83 Through 1987-88
3000
1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88
Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases and petitions (not motions) in the Court of Appeals.
28
co
0D3
6/5
s >
w 5
H
c/3 a
>- «
GO (/) *> H u
tt
£ 1/5
O Q
u __
a H %i Z TJ w 3
CD -S w A
OS
wK
u
H JZ
+*uOz
c5
6/
(LI
e
15
3
3O
u -o a >>
2 <L>
a!
y
3 O—
a.
3 3 8*
o
00 u -
o i: x S3
.H 13
5 "C
2 §
'£ '£
VI Cfl "3 wa CO '_2 3
.1
-o
q
3
3
•3
& "3
'3 w .c c/3 o o o
u C '•5 3 o *•
•a u o _c « 3
3 _j CJ 1> (J
yj u _E «* & •5 u
. — V5 *-; c/5
»tf T3 c '5
va
o o C o m E w '"2 3 "("X
3 u.
O D.
c o s u U U-.
<U c 4=
'" O ^
"5
o
u
c5 CO
3Ou
o u- c 3 W o so CQ u
03 t—
>. 0. l>
J3
!M <u
rIJ u u T3 *3
S3
C
O
ah a
3
u
3
o
IE
3
OU
;g
o
C «
« 8 U
CO 3
U
Oo
c o *-> en
W5 --h "5
o co
-a
uc
3
15-2
u3
I— aj CO
5P > i; 3
o 3
C/)
>
-5
CO
«5
"C a 2 .23 2hUQ
—
i
29
JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT*
(As of June 30, 1988)
District
1
2
3
[0
12
13
14
FIRST DIVISION
J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City
Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City
William C. Griffin, Jr., Williamston
David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville
Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City
Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville
James R. Strickland, Jacksonville
Bradford Tillery, Wilmington
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington
Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids
Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro
Charles B. Winberry, Rocky Mount
James D. Llewellyn, Kinston
Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro
SECOND DIVISION
Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg
Henry W. Hight, Jr., Henderson
Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh
Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh
Donald W. Stephens, Raleigh
Howard E. Manning, Jr., Raleigh
Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn
Darius B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville
Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville
Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown
Thomas H. Lee, Durham
Anthony M. Brannon, Durham
James M. Read, Durham
15A Jasper B. Allen, Jr., Burlington
15B F. Gordon Battle, Hillsboro
16 B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg
District
17A
17B
19A
19B
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27A
27B
28
29
30
THIRD DIVISION
Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., Wentworth
James M. Long, Pilot Mountain
W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro
Thomas W. Ross, Greensboro
Joseph John, Greensboro
Ralph A. Walker, Greensboro
Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer
James C. Davis, Concord
Russell G. Walker, Jr., Asheboro
F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro
William H. Helms, Wingate
William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem
Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem
Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville
C. Preston Cornelius, Morresville
Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro
FOURTH DIVISION
Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone
Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory
Claude S. Sitton, Morganton
Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte
Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte
Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte
W. Terry Sherrill, Charlotte
Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia
John M. Gardner, Shelby
Robert D. Lewis, Asheville
C. Walter Allen, Asheville
Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton
James U. Downs, Franklin
Janet M. Hyatt, Waynesville
'In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first.
30
SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT
James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem
John B. Lewis, Jr., Farmville
Richard D. Boner, Charlotte
Bruce B. Briggs, Mars Hill
Jack B. Crawley, Jr., Raleigh
Marvin K. Gray, Charlotte
Lamar Gudger, Asheville
I. Beverly Lake, Jr., Raleigh
Carlton E. Fellers, Raleigh
Samuel T. Currin, Raleigh
EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT
Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton
Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton
James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh
The Conference of Superior Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1988)
James M. Long, Pilot Mountain, President
Robert D. Lewis, Asheville, President-Elect
William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem, Vice President
Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville, Secretary-Treasurer
D. B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville and
James R. Strickland, Jacksonville,
Additional Executive Committe Member
Judge James M. Long
31
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Superior Courts
North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris-diction
trial courts for the state. In 1987-88, there were 64
"resident" superior court judges elected to office in the 34
judicial districts for eight-year terms by Statewide ballot.
In addition, ten "special" superior court judges are
appointed by the Governor.
Jurisdiction
The superior court has original jurisdiction in all felony
cases and in those misdemeanor cases which originate by
grand jury indictment. (Most misdemeanors are tried first
in the district court, from which conviction may be
appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a jury.
No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in district
court.) The superior court is the proper court for the trial
of civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds
$10,000, and it has jurisdiction over appeals from admin-istrative
agencies except the Industrial Commission, cer-tain
rulings of the Commissioner of Insurance, the Board
of Bar Examiners of the North Carolina State Bar, the
Board of State Contract Appeals, and the Property Tax
Commission. Appeals from these agencies lie directly to
the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Regardless of the
amount in controversy, the original civil jurisdiction of
the superior court does not include domestic relations
cases, which are heard in the district courts, or probate
and estates matters and certain special proceedings heard
first by the clerk of superior court. Rulings of the clerk are
within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court.
Administration
The 100 counties of North Carolina were grouped into
34 judicial districts during 1986-87. Each district has at
least one resident superior court judge who has certain
administrative responsibilities for his home district, such
as providing for civil case calendaring procedures. (Crimi-nal
case calendars are prepared by the district attorneys.)
In districts with more than one resident superior court
judge, the judge senior in service on the superior court
bench exercises these supervisory powers.
The judicial districts are grouped into four divisions for
the rotation of superior court judges, as shown on the
map on Page 31. Within the division, a resident superior
court judge is required to rotate among the judicial dis-tricts,
holding court for at least six months in each, then
moving on to his next assignment. A special superior
court judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the
100 counties. Assignments of all superior court judges are
made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under
the Constitution of North Carolina, at least two sessions
(a week each) of superior court are held annually in each
of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties have
more than the constitutional minimum of two weeks of
superior court annually. Many larger counties have
superior court in session about every week in the year.
Expenditures
A total of $1 5,978,747 was expended on the operations
of the superior courts during the 1987-88 fiscal year. This
included the salaries and travel expenses for the 74 super-ior
court judges, and salaries and expenses for court
reporters and secretarial staff for superior court judges.
The 1 987-88 expenditures for the superior courts amount-ed
to 9.65% of total General Fund expenditures for the
operations of the entire Judicial Department during the
1987-88 fiscal year.
Caseload
Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of
105,704 cases were filed in the superior courts during
1987-88, an increase of 6,818 cases (6.9%) from the total
of 98,886 cases that were filed in 1986-87. There were
increases in filings in all case categories: civil cases, felo-nies,
and misdemeanor appeals.
Superior court case dispositions increased from 96,308
in 1986-87 to 100,808 in 1987-88. Dispositions of civil and
felony cases increased, while dispositions of misdemeanor
appeals decreased.
More detailed information on the flow of cases through
the superior courts is included in Part IV of this Report.
32
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1988)
District
1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City
John R. Parker, Manteo
2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington
Samuel G. Grimes, Washington
James W. Hardison, Wiliamston
3 E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville
J. Randal Hunter, New Bern
Willie L. Lumpkin, III, Morehead City
James E. Martin, Bethel
James E. Ragan, Oriental
H. Horton Rountree, Greenville
4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill
William M. Cameron, Jr., Jacksonville
Wayne G. Kimble, Jr., Jacksonville
Leonard W. Thagard, Clinton
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville
5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington
Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington
Charles E. Rice, III, Wilmington
Elton Glenn Tucker, Wilmington
6 Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck
Robert E. Williford, Lewiston
7 George Britt, Tarboro
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson
Quentin T. Sumner, Rocky Mount
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson
8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro
Joseph E. Setzer, Jr., Goldsboro
9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford
Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton
Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford
10 George F. Bason, Raleigh
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh
William A. Creech, Raleigh
George R. Greene, Raleigh
Joyce A. Hamilton, Raleigh
Jerry W. Leonard, Raleigh
Fred M. Morelock, Raleigh
Louis W. Payne, Jr., Raleigh
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh
District
1
1
Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield
William Christian, Sanford
Edward H. McCormick, Lillington
Owen H. Willis, Jr., Dunn
12 Sol. G. Cherry, Fayetteville
John S. Hair, Jr., Fayetteville
Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville
Anna E. Keever, Fayetteville
Warren L. Pate, Raeford
Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville
13 William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville
Dewey J. Hooks, Jr., Whiteville
Jerry A. Jolly, Tabor City
David G. Wall, Elizabethtown
14 David Q. LaBarre, Durham
Richard Chaney, Durham
Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., Durham
Carolyn D. Johnson, Durham
Kenneth C. Titus, Durham
15A W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham
Spencer B. Ennis, Burlington
James K. Washburn, Burlington
15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill
Lowry M. Betts, Pittsboro
Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill
16 John S. Gardner, Lumberton
Adelaide G. Behan, Lumberton
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton
17A Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville
Robert R. Blackwell, Reidsville
Philip W. Allen, Yanceyville
17B Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy
Clarence W. Carter, King
18 Paul T. Williams, Greensboro
Sherry F. Alloway, Greensboro
Robert E. Bencini, Jr., High Point
William L. Daisy, Greensboro
Edmund Lowe, High Point
Lawrence C. McSwain, Greensboro
J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro
William A. Vaden, Greensboro
19A Frank M. Montgomery, Salibury
Robert M. Davis, Salisbury
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord
Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis
*The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first.
33
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1988)
District
19B William M. Neely, Asheboro
Richard M. Toomes, Asheboro
20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro
Michael E. Beale, Southern Pines
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle
Kenneth W. Honneycutt, Monroe
Tanya T. Wallace, Carthage
21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem
Lorretta C. Biggs, Clemmons
James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem
Roland H. Hayes, Winston-Salem
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem
William B. Reingold, Winston-Salem
22 Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville
George T. Fuller, Lexington
Kimberly T.Harbinson, Taylorsville
Robert W. Johnson, Statesville
23 Samuel L. Osborne, Wilkesboro
Edgar B. Gregory, Wilkesboro
Michael E. Helms, Wilkesboro
24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland
Charles P. Ginn, Boone
R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk
25 L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory
Ronald E. Bogle, Hickory
Stewart L. Cloer, Hickory
Jonathan L. Jones, Hickory
Timothy S. Kincaid, Newton
*The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first.
District
26
27A
27B
James E. Lanning, Charlotte
Marilyn R. Bissell, Charlotte
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte
Richard A. Elkins, Charlotte
Shirley L. Fulton, Charlotte
Resa L. Harris, Charlotte
Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte
William G. Jones, Charlotte
Theodore P. Matus, II, Charlotte
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte
Lawrence B. Langson, Gastonia
Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia
Harley B. Gaston, Jr., Belmont
Timothy L. Patti, Gastonia
Catherine C. Stevens, Gastonia
George W. Hamrick, Shelby
James T. Bowen, Lincolnton
John K. Fonvielle, Shelby
28 Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden
Gary S. Cash, Fletcher
Robert L. Harrell, Asheville
Peter L. Roda, Asheville
29 Robert T. Gash, Brevard
Loto J. Greenlee, Marion
Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville
30 John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy
Steven J. Bryant, Bryson City
Danny E. Davis, Waynesville
34
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
The Association of District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1988)
Sol G. Cherry, Fayetteville, President
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury, Vice President
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston, Secretary-Treasurer
George M. Britt, Tarboro
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville
W.S. Harris, Jr., Graham
Charles P. Ginn, Boone
Additional Executive Committee Members
Judge Sol. G. Cherry
35
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The District Courts
North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with
original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of the
cases handled by the State's court system. There were 151
district court judges serving in 34 judicial districts during
1987-88. These judges are elected to four-year terms by
the voters of their respective districts.
A total of 640 magistrate positions were authorized as
of June 30, 1988. Of this number, about 100 positions
were specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed by
the senior resident superior court judge from nominations
submitted by the clerk of superior court of their county,
and they are supervised by the chief district court judge of
their district.
Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtually
all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in most
felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary com-mitments
and recommitments to mental hospitals, and
domestic relations cases. Effective September 1 , 1986, the
General Assembly decriminalized many minor traffic
offenses. Such offenses, previously charged as misdemea-nors,
are now "infractions," defined as non-criminal vio-lations
of law not punishable by imprisonment. The dis-trict
court division has original jurisdiction for all infrac-tion
cases. The district courts have concurrent jurisdiction
with the superior courts in general civil cases, but the
district courts are the proper courts for the trial of civil
cases where the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less.
Upon the plaintiff's request, a civil case in which the
amount in controversy is $1,500 or less, may be desig-nated
a "small claims" case and assigned by the chief
district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magis-trates
are empowered to try worthless check criminal
cases when the value of the check does not exceed $500. In
addition, they may accept written appearances, waivers of
trial, and pleas of guilty in such worthless check cases
when the amount of the check is $500 or less, the offender
has made restitution, and the offender has fewer than four
previous worthless check convictions. Magistrates may
accept waviers of appearance and pleas of guilty in mis-demeanor
or infraction cases involving traffic, alcohol,
boating, hunting and fishing violation cases, for which a
uniform schedule of fines has been adopted by the Con-ference
of Chief District Judges. Magistrates also conduct
initial hearings to fix conditions of release for arrested
defendants, and they are empowered to issue arrest and
search warrants.
Administration
A chief district judge is appointed for each judicial
district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from
among the elected judges in the respective districts. Sub-ject
to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each chief
judge exercises administrative supervision and authority
over the operation of the district courts and magistrates in
his district. Each chief judge is responsible for scheduling
sessions of district court and assigningjudges; supervising
the calendaring of noncriminal cases; assigning matters to
magistrates; making arrangements for court reporting
and jury trials in civil cases; and supervising the discharge
of clerical functions in the district courts.
The chief district court judges meet in conference at
least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual con-ference
adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and
fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks
of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance
and guilty pleas.
Expenditures
Total expenditures for the operation of the district
courts in 1987-88 amounted to $29,939,853. This is an
increase of 11.3% over 1986-87 expenditures of
$26,908,723. Included in this total are the personnel costs
of court reporters and secretaries as well as the personnel
costs of the 151 district court judges and approximately
640 magistrates. The 1 987-88 total is 1 8. 1 % of the General
Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial
Department, about the same percentage share of total
Judicial Department expenditures that the district courts
took for the 1986-87 fiscal year.
Caseload
During 1987-88 the statewide total number of district
court filings (civil and criminal) increased 135,462 (7.2%)
over the total number reported for 1986-87. Not including
juvenile proceedings and mental hospital commitment
hearings, the filing total in 1987-88 was 2,004,447. Much
of this increase is attributable to increases in criminal
motor vehicle and infraction filings. Considering criminal
motor vehicle and infraction cases together there was an
increase of 52,764 cases (5.4%) above the number of such
cases filed in 1986-87. Filings of criminal non-motor vehi-cle
cases increased by 46,579 (9.9%), and filings of civil
magistrate cases increased by 29,881 (12.1%) above the
numbers of cases filed in these categories in 1986-87.
More detailed information on district court civil and
criminal caseloads and on juvenile case activity is con-tained
in Part IV of this Report.
36
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The District Courts
The Conference of Chief District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1988)
Robert H. Lacey, Newland, President
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury, Vice President
John S. Gardner, Lumberton, Secretary-Treasurer
Judge Robert H. Lacey
37
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
(As of June 30, 1988)
District
1 H. P. WILLIAMS, JR., Elizabeth City
2 MITCHELL D. NORTON, Washington
3A THOMAS D. HAIGWOOD, Greenville
3B WILLIAM D. McFADYEN, New Bern
4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville
5 JERRY L. SPIVEY, Wilmington
6 DAVID H. BEARD, JR., Murfreesboro
7 HOWARD S. BONEY, JR., Tarboro
8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro
9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford
10 C. COLON WILLOUGHBY, JR., Raleigh
1
1
JOHN W. TWISDALE, Smithfield
12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville
13 MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Whiteville
14 RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham
15A STEVE A. BALOG, Graham
15B CARL R. FOX, Chapel Hill
16 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton
District
17A THURMAN B. HAMPTON, Wentworth
17B HAROLD D. BOWMAN, Dobson
18 HORACE M. KIMEL, JR., Greensboro
19A JAMES E. ROBERTS, Concord
19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro
20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe
21 W. WARREN SPARROW, Winston-Salem
22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington
23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro
24 JAMES THOMAS RUSHER, Marshall
25 ROBERT E. THOMAS, Newton
26 PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte
27A CALVIN B. HAMRICK, Gastonia
27B WILLIAM C. YOUNG, Shelby
28 ROBERT W. FISHER, Asheville
29 ALAN C. LEONARD, Rutherfordton
30 ROY H. PATTON, JR., Waynesville
38
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The District Attorneys
The Conference of District Attorneys
(Executive Committee as of June 30, 1987)
Michael F. Easley, Presdient
Ronald L. Stephens, President- Elect
H.P. Williams, Vice President
Edward W. Grannis, Jr..
Thomas D. Haigwood
Roy H. Patton, Jr.
C. Colon Willoughby, Jr.
H.W. Zimmerman, Jr.
The District Attorneys Association
(Officers as of June 30, 1987)
Michael F. Easley, Bolivia, President
H.P. Williams, Elizabeth City, Vice President
Ronald L. Stephens, Durham, Vice President for
Legislative Affairs
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Jr., Bolivia, Secretary-
Treasurer
District Attorney
Michael F. Easley
39
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The District Attorneys
The State is divided into 35 prosecutorial districts
which, with one exception, correspond to the 34 judicial
districts. By act of the 1981 Session of the General
Assembly, the 3rd Judicial District is divided into two
separate prosecutorial districts, Prosecutorial Districts
3A and 3B, effective October 1, 1981. Prosecutorial Dis-trict
3A consists of Pitt County, and Prosecutorial Dis-trict
3B is comprised of Craven, Carteret, and Pamlico
(G.S. 7A-60). A district attorney is elected by the voters in
each of the 35 districts for four-year terms.
Duties
The district attorney represents the State in all criminal
actions brought in the superior and district courts in his
district, and is responsible for ensuring that infraction
cases are prosecuted efficiently. In addition to his prosec-utorial
functions, the district attorney is responsible for
calendaring criminal cases for trial.
Resources
Each district attorney may employ on a full-time basis
the number of assistant district attorneys authorized by
statute for his district. As of June 30, 1988, a total of 225
assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 35
prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 26
(Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff (19 assistants)
and the district attorney of seven judicial districts (15 A,
15B, 17A, 17B, 19B, 23, 24) had the smallest staff (three
assistants).
Each district attorney is authorized to employ an
administrative assistant to aid in preparing cases for trial
and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district
attorney in 18 of the 35 districts is authorized to employ
an investigatorial assistant who aids in the investigation
of cases prior to trial. All district attorneys are authorized
to employ a victim and witness coordinator.
Expenditures
A total of $19,014,218 was expended in 1987-88 for the
35 offices of district attorney. In addition, a total of
$100,943 was expended for the District Attorney's Con-ference
and its staff.
1987-1988 Caseload
A total of 88,948 criminal cases were filed in the super-ior
courts during 1987-88, consisting of 55,284 felony
cases and 33,664 misdemeanor appeals from the district
courts. The total number of criminal filings in the super-ior
courts in the previous year was 83,478. The increase of
5,470 cases in 1987-88 represents a 6.6% increase over the
1986-87 total.
Total criminal cases disposed of by the superior courts
in 1987-88 amounted to 85,123. There were 53,420 felony
dispositions; the number of misdemeanor cases disposed
of was 31,703. Compared with 1986-87, total criminal
case dispositions increased by 3,987 over the 81,136 cases
disposed of in that fiscal year.
The median ages of 1987-88 criminal cases at disposi-tion
in the superior courts were 86 days for felony cases
and 70 days for misdemeaor appeals. In 1986-87, the
median age of felony cases at disposition was 9 1 days, and
the median age at disposition for misdemeanor appeals
was 71 days.
The number of criminal cases disposed of by jury trial
in the superior courts increased slightly from 3,072 in
1986-87 to 3,111 in 1987-88, an increase of 1.3%. As in
past years, the proportion of total criminal cases disposed
by jury was small—3.8% in 1986-87 compared to 3.7% in
1987-88. This small number of cases, however, requires
the great proportion of superior court time and resources
devoted to handling the criminal caseload.
By contrast, in 1987-88 a majority (45,600 or 53.6%) of
criminal case dispositions in superior courts were pro-cessed
on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a trial.
This percentage represents a slight increase over the pro-portion
of guilty plea dispositions reported for 1986-87
(52.1%).
"Dismissal by district attorney" accounted for a signifi-cant
percentage of all criminal case dispotions during
1987-88—a total of 23,657 cases, or 27.8% of all disposi-tions.
This proportion is comparable to that recorded for
prior years. Many of the dismissals involved the situa-tions
of two or more cases pending against the same
defendant, resulting in a plea bargain agreement where
the defendant pleads guilty to some charges in exchange
for a dismissal of others.
There was an increase in the number of "Speedy Trial
Act" dismissals in superior courts, from 48 in 1986-87 to
52 in 1987-88.
The total number of criminal cases disposed of in the
superior courts was 3,825 cases less than the total number
of case filed in 1987-88. Consequently, the number of
criminal cases pending in suprioer court increased from
27,229 at the beginning of the fiscal year to a total at year's
end of 31,054, an increase of 14.0%.
The median age of pending felony cases in the superior
courts decreased from 88 days on June 30, 1987 to 79 days
on June 30, 1988. The median age of pending misdemea-nor
appeals also decreased—from 83 days on June 30,
1987 to 78 days on June 30, 1988.
Consideration of district court criminal caseloads is
affected by the existence of a new case category in the
district courts, "infractions. "Effective September 1, 1986,
many minor traffic offenses were decriminalized and
thereafter charged as infractions, defined as non-criminal
violations of law not punishable by imprisonment.
Although non-criminal, district attorneys are responsible
for the prosecution of these cases.
Nearly all infraction cases were criminal motor vehicle
cases in prior years. Therefore, for purposes of comparing
40
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
current to prior year criminal caseloads, motor vehicle
filings and dispositions in prior years are compared to
filings and dispositions of motor vehicle cases plus infrac-tions
in 1987-88.
In the district courts, a total of 1 ,542,962 criminal cases
and infractions were filed during 1987-88. This total con-sisted
of 419,407 criminal motor vehicle cases, 608,845
infraction cases, and 514,710 criminal non-motor vehicle
cases. A comparison of total filings in 1987-88 with total
filings in 1986-87 (1,443,619) reveals an increase in district
court criminal and infraction filings of 99,343 cases, or
6.9%. Filings of non-motor vehicle cases rose by 46,579
cases (9.9%), from 468,131 cases in 1986-87 to 514,710
cases in 1987-88. Filings of motor vehicle plus infraction
cases increased by 52,764 cases (5.4%), from 975,488 in
1986-87 to 1,028,252 in 1987-88.
Total dispositions of motor vehicle and infraction cases
in the district courts amounted to 994,387 cases during
1987-88 (401,855 motor vehicle dispositions and 592,532
infraction dispositions). As in prior years, a substantial
portion of such cases are disposed by waiver of appear-ance
and entry of pleas of guilty (or "responsibility" in
infraction cases) before a clerk or magistrate. During
1987-88, 506,999 (5 1 .0%) of motor vehicle and infraction
cases were disposed by waiver. This substantial number of
cases did not, of course, require action by the district
attorneys' offices and should not be regarded as having
been a part of the district attorneys' caseload. The remain-ing
487,388 infraction and motor vehicle cases (186,022
infraction and 301 ,332 motor vehicle cases) were disposed
by means other than waiver. This balance was 59,022
cases (or 13.8%) more than the 428,366 non-waiver motor
vehicle dispositions in 1986-87. (The clerks of court do
not report motor vehicle criminal cases or infractions by
case file number to the Administrative Office of the
Courts. Only summary total number of filings and dispo-sitions
are reported. Therefore, it is not possible by
computer-processing to obtain pending case data for the
motor vehicle criminal case or infraction case categories.)
With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case dispo-sitions,
a total of 500,529 such cases were disposed of in
district courts in 1987-88. As with superior court criminal
cases, the most frequent method of disposition was by
entry of guilty plea; the next most frequent was dismissal
by the district attorney. Some 177,010 cases, or 35.4% of
the dispositions were by guilty pleas. An additional
138,798 cases, or 27.7% of the total were disposed of by
prosecutor dismissal. The remaining cases were disposed
of by waiver (11.3%), trial (8.2%), as a felony probable
cause matter (9.1%), or by other means (8.3%).
During 1987-88, the median age at disposition of non-motor
vehicle criminal cases was 30 days, compared with
28 days at disposition for 1986-87.
Total non-motor vehicle criminal dispositions were
14,181 cases less than the total of such filings during
1 987-88. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal cases
pending at year's end was 97,866, compared with a total of
83,685 at the beginning of the year, an increase of 1 4, 1 8
1
(16.9%) in the number of pending cases. The median age
for pending non-motor vehicle cases rose from 54 days on
June 30, 1987 to 57 days on June 30, 1988.
Additional information on the criminal caseloads in
superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this
Report.
41
CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
(As of June 30, 1988)
COUNTY CLERK OF COURT COUNTY
Alamance Louise B. Wilson Johnston
Alexander Seth Chapman Jones
Alleghany Rebecca J. Gambill Lee
Anson R. Frank Hightower Lenoir
Ashe Jerry L. Roten Lincoln
Avery Robert F. Taylor Macon
Beaufort Thomas S. Payne, III Madison
Bertie John Tyler Martin
Bladen Hilda H. Coleman McDowell
Brunswick Diana R. Morgan Mecklenburg
Buncombe J. Ray Elingburg Mitchell
Burke Major A. Joines Montgomery
Cabarrus Estus B. White Moore
Caldwell Jeanette Turner Nash
Camden Catherine W. McCoy New Hanover
Carteret Darlene Leonard Northampton
Caswell Janet H. Cobb Onslow
Catawba Phyllis B. Hicks Orange
Chatham Janice Oldham Pamlico
Cherokee Rose Mary Crooke Pasquotank
Chowan Marjorie H. Hollowell Pender
Clay James H. McClure Perquimans
Cleveland Ruth S. Dedmon Person
Columbus Lacy R. Thompson Pitt
Craven Dorothy Pate Polk
Cumberland George T. Griffin Randolph
Currituck Sheila R. Doxey Richmond
Dare Betty Mann Robeson
Davidson Martha S. Nicholson Rockingham
Davie Delores C. Jordan Rowan
Duplin John A. Johnson Rutherford
Durham James Leo Carr Sampson
Edgecombe Curtis Weaver Scotland
Forsyth Frances P. Storey Stanly
Franklin Ralph S. Knott Stokes
Gaston Betty B. Jenkins Surry
Gates Terry L. Riddick Swain
Graham O.W. Hooper, Jr. Transylvania
Granville Mary Ruth C. Nelms Tyrrell
Greene Joyce L. Harrell Union
Guilford Barbara G. Washington Vance
Halifax Ellen C. Neathery Wake
Harnett Georgia Lee Brown Warren
Haywood William G. Henry Washington
Henderson Thomas H. Thompson Watauga
Hertford Richard T. Vann Wayne
Hoke Juanita Edmund Wilkes
Hyde Lenora R. Bright Wilson
Iredell Angelia T. Roberts Yadkin
Jackson Frank Watson, Jr. Yancey
CLERK OF COURT
Will R. Crocker
Ronald H. Metts
Lucille H. York
Claude C. Davis
Pamela C. Huskey
Anna I. Carson
James W. Cody
Phyllis G. Pearson
Ruth B. Williams
Robert M. Blackburn
Linda D. Woody
Charles M. Johnson
Rachel H. Comer
Rachel M. Joyner
Louise D. Rehder
R. Jennings White, Jr.
Everitte Barbee
Shirley L. James
Mary Jo Potter
Frances W. Thompson
Frances D. Basden
Walter W. White
W. Thomas Humphries
Sandra Gaskins
Judy P. Arledge
Lynda B. Skeen
Catherine S. Wilson
Dixie I. Barrington
Frankie C. Williams
Francis Glover
Keith H. Melton
Charlie T. McCullen
C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr.
David R. Fisher
Pauline Kirkman
David J. Beal
Sara Robinson
Marian M. McMahon
Nathan T. Everett
Nola H. McCollum
Lucy Longmire
John M. Kennedy
Richard E. Hunter, Jr.
Timothy L. Spear
John T. Bingham
David B. Brantly
Wayne Roope
Nora H. Hargrove
Harold J. Long
F. Warren Hughes
42
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Clerks of Superior Court
Association of Clerks of Superior Court
(Officers as of June 30, 1988)
Frances W. Thompson, Pasquotank County,
President
James L. Carr, Durham County
First Vice President
Ray Elingburg, Buncombe County
Second Vice President
Judy Arledge, Polk County
Secretary
C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr., Scotland County
Treasurer
Frances W. Thompson
43
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Clerks of Superior Court
A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for a four-year
term by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 coun-ties.
The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide special
proceedings and is, ex officio, judge of probate, in addi-tion
to performing record-keeping and administrative
functions for both the superior and district courts of his
county.
Jurisdiction
The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court
includes the probate of wills and administration of dece-dents'
estates. It also includes such "special proceedings"
as adoptions, condemnations of private property under
the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings to
establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain proceed-ings
to administer the estates of minors and incompetent
adults. The right of appeal from the clerks'judgments in
such cases lies to the superior court.
The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue
search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and
other process necessary to execute the judgments entered
in the superior and district courts of his county. For
certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is autho-rized
to accept defendants' waiver of appearance and plea
of guilty and to impose a fine in accordance with a sche-dule
established by the Conference of Chief District
Court Judges.
Administration
The clerk of superior court performs administrative
duties for both the superior and district courts of his
county. Among these duties are the maintenance of court
records and indexes, the control and accounting of funds,
and the furnishing of information to the Administrative
Office of the Courts.
In most counties, the clerk continues to perform certain
functions related to preparation of civil case calendars,
and in many counties, the clerk's staff assists the district
attorney in preparing criminal case calendars as well.
Policy and oversight responsibility for civil case calendar-ing
is vested in the State's senior resident superior court
judges and chief district court judges. However, day-to-day
civil calendar preparation is the clerk's responsibility
in all districts except those served by trial court ad-ministrators.
Expenditures
A total of $50,954,569 was expended in 1987-88 for the
operation of the 100 clerk of superior court offices. In
addition to the salaries and other expenses of the clerks
and their staffs, this total includes expenditures for jurors'
fees, and witness expenses.
Total expenditures for clerks' offices in 1987-88
amounted to 30.8% of the General Fund expenditures for
the operations of the entire Judicial Department.
1987-88 Caseload
During 1987-88, estate case filings totalled 45,013
which represents a 4.0% increase over the 43,285 case filed
in 1986-87. Estate case dispositions totalled 43,288 cases
in 19876-88, or 2.9% more than the previous year's total of
42,070.
A total of 41,881 special proceedings was filed before
the 100 clerks of superior courts in 1987-88. This is an
increase of 2,595 cases (6.6%) from the 39,286 filings in
the previous fiscal years. Special proceedings dispositions
totalled 37,951 cases, or 17.5% more than the previous
year's total of 32,309.
The clerks of superior court are also responsible for
handling the records of all case filings and dispositions in
the superior and district courts. The total number of
superior court case filings during the 1987-88 year was
105,704 and the total number of district court filings, not
including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital com-mitment
hearings, was 2,004,447.
More detailed information on the estates and special
proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this
Report.
44
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Juvenile Services Division
The Juvenile Services Division of the Administrative
Office of the Courts provides intake, probation and after-care
services to juveniles who are before the District
Courts for delinquent matters, i.e., violations of the crimi-nal
code, including motor vehicle violations; and for
undisciplined matters, such as running away from home,
being truant, and being beyond the parents' disciplinary
control.
Intake is the screening of complaints alleging delin-quent
or undisciplined behavior by children, to determine
whether petitions should be filed. During the 1987-88 year
a total of 28,906 complaints were brought to the attention
of intake counselors. Of this number, 19,002 (66%) were
approved for filing, and 9,904 (34%) were not approved
for filing.
Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of children
in their own communities. Probation is authorized by
judicial order. Aftercare service is provided for juveniles
after their release from a training school. (Protective
supervision is also a form of court-ordered supervision
within the community; and this service is combined with
probation and aftercare.)
In 1987-88 a total of 17,086 juveniles were supervised in
the probation and aftercare program.
Expenditures
The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The
expenditures for fiscal year 1987-88 totalled $1 1,334,027.
This was an increase of 7.8% over the 1986-87 expendi-tures.
The 1987-88 expenditures amounted to 6.8% of all
General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire
Judicial Department, close to the same percentage share
of total Judicial Department expenditures for the Di-vision
as in the previous fiscal year.
Administration
The Administrator of the Juvenile Services Division is
appointed by the Director of the Administrative Office of
the Courts. A chief court counselor is appointed for each
judicial district by the Administrator of the Juvenile Ser-vices
Division, with the approval of the Chief District
Court Judge and the Administrative Officer of the
Courts. Subject to the Administrator's general supervi-sion,
each chief court counselor exercises administrative
supervision over the operation of the court counseling
services in the respective districts.
Juvenile Services Division Staff
(As of June 30, 1988)
Thomas A. Danek, Administrator
Nancy C. Patteson, Area Administrator
Edward F. Taylor, Area Administrator
John T. Wilson, Area Administrator
Rex B. Yates, Area Administrator
M. Harold Rogerson, Jr., Program Specialist
Arlene J. Kincaid, Administrative Officer
45
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Juvenile Service Division
(As of June 30, 1988)
Judicial
District Chief Court Counselors
1 Donald Alexander
2 Joseph A. Paul
3 Eve C. Rogers
4 Ida Ray Miles
5 Phyllis Roebuck
6 John R. Brady
7 Pam Honeycutt
8 Lynn C. Sasser
9 Cecil T. Lewis, Jr.
10 Larry C. Dix
1! Henry C. Cox
12 Phil T. Utley
13 Jimmy E. Godwin
14 Fred Elkins
15A Harry L. Derr
15B Donald Hargrove
Judicial
District Chief Court Counselors
\b Robert H. Hughes
17Aand 17B Martha M. Lauten
18 J. Manley Dodson
19A and 19B James C. Queen
20 Jimmy L. Craig
21 James J. Weakland
22 Carl T. Duncan
23 C. Wayne Dixon
24 Lynn Hughes
25 Lee Cox
26 James A. Yancey
27A Charles Reeves
27B Gloria Newman
28 Louis Parrish
29 Kenneth E. Lanninj
30 Betty G. Alley
THE COURT COUNSELORS ASSOCIATION
(Officers for 1987-88)
Executive Committee Members
Carey Collins President
Carl Duncan, President- Elect
Pat Wolfe, Seretary
Dennis Cotten, Treasurer
Amie Haith, Parliamentarian
1985-88
Jane Clare
Bruce Stanback
Board Members
1986-89 1987-90
Richard Alligood Gloria Newman
Marion Brewer Blake Belcher
Anne Loy Charles Reeves
Carey Collins
46
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services
Program Services
When a peition alleging abuse or neglect of a juvenile is
filed in district court, the judge appoints a trained volun-teer
guardian ad litem and an attorney advocate to work
together to represent the child's best interests. The attor-ney
protects the child's legal rights while ensuring that the
volunteer guardian has appropriate access to the court
process. The trained volunteer investigates the child's
situation and works with the attorney to report the child's
needs to the court and to make recommendations for case
disposition and any necessary continuing supervision
until court intervention is no longer required. During
1 987-88, a total of 989 volunteers were active in the North
Carolina program and represented a total of 5,0 1 1 abused
and neglected children. These volunteers participated in
5,434 court hearings and gave approximately 75,000
volunteer hours to casework and training in the State's
guardian ad litem program.
Expenditures
During 1 987-88, total expenditures for the guardian ad
litem program amounted to $1,332,851. Of this amount,
$5 14,257 was for program attorney fees and $8 1 8,594 was
for program administration. The total included reimbur-sement
of volunteers' expense of $41,158 (covering 64,752
casework hours for 5,0 1 1 abused and neglected children).
This compares with 1986-87 total expenditure of
$1,1 17,720, with 755 volunteers representing, 3,837 child-ren
and providing 37,444 casework hours with reimbur-sement
expenses of $28,778.
Administration
The Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services, established
by the General Assembly in 1983, is a division of the
Administrative Office of the Courts. The Director of the
Administrative Offie of the Courts appoints the Adminis-trator
of the Office of Guardian Ad Litem Service and
appoints members of a Guardian Ad Litem Advisory
Committee to work with the Administrator, who is
responsible for planning and directing the guardian ad
litem services program through the State.
The Administrator is assisted by two regional manag-ers,
each of whom supervises the development and
implementation of services for a segment of judicial dis-tricts,
directing the local program, providing assistance in
training programs for volunteers, and resolving opera-tional
problems in the districts.
A coordinator is employed for 30 of the State's 34
judicial districts to recruit, screen, train and supervise
volunteers. Seven of these coordinators were added in
fiscal year 1987-88. Program coordinators contact com-munity
groups, local agencies, the courts, and the media
in order to develop volunteer participation, solicit sup-port
from key officials, provide public education about
the program, and cultivate services for children. The
coordinators plan an initial sixteen-hour training course
for new veolunteers, match children (who are before the
courts) with volunteers, implement continued training for
experienced guardians, and provide supervision of, and
consultation and support to, volunteers. Other coordina-tor
responsibilities are to assure that in each case the
attorney receives information from the volunteer assigned
to the case and that the court receives timely oral or
written reports each time a child's case is heard. (Coordi-nators
were not employed during 1987-88 for four judicial
districts in which the case load was too small to justify a
coordinator position. In those counties, the contract
attorney served as the volunteer coordinator.)
Guardian Ad Litem Staff
(As of June 30, 1988)
Virginia C. Weisz, Administrator
Cindy Mays, Regional Manager
Marilyn Stevens, Regional Manager
47
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Guardian ad Litem Division
(As of June 30, 1988)
Judicial Judicial
District Coordinator District Coordinator
1 Veola Spivey 15A Eleanor Ketcham
2 Jennifer Leggett 15B& 19B Floyd Wicker
3 Carol Mattocks 16 Gladys Pierce
4 Jean Hawley 18 Sam Parrish
5 Jane Brister 19A Amy Collins
6 Patsey Moseley-Moss 20 Martha Sue Hall
7 Sandra Pittman 21 Linda Garrou
8 Claudia Kadis 22 Pam Ashmore
9 Sarah Sponenberg 25 Anglea Phillips
10 Lloyd Inman 26 Judi Strause
12 Brownie Smathers 27A&B Sindy Waggoner
13 Pam Ward & 28 Jean Moore
Betty Buck 29 Barbara King
14 Cy Gurney Elkins 30 Celia Larson
48
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Public Defenders
During 1987-88, there were seven public defender offi-ces
in North Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 3,* 12,
15B, 18, 26, 27A, and 28. The public defender for each
district is appointed by the senior resident superior court
judge of that district from a list of not less than two and
not more than three names nominated by written ballot of
the attorneys resident in the district who are licensed to
practice law in North Carolina. Their terms are four
years. Each public defender is by statute provided a min-imum
of one full-time assistant public defender and addi-tional
full-time or part-time assistants as may be autho-rized
by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Entitlement of Indigents to Counsel
A person is determined to be indigent if he is found
"financially unable to secure legal representation." He is
entitled to State-paid legal representation in: any pro-ceeding
which may result in (or which seeks relief from)
confinement; a fine of $500 or more; or extradition to
another State; a proceeding alleging mental illness or
incapacity which may result in hospitalization, steriliza-tion,
or the loss of certain property rights; and juvenile
proceedings which may result in confinement, transfer to
superior court for a felony trial, or termination of paren-tal
rights.
Most of the cases of State-paid representation of indi-gents
in the districts with public defenders are handled by
the public defender's office. However, the court may in
certain circumstances—such as existence of a potential
conflict of interest—assign private counsel to represent an
indigent defendant. In the other 28 districts, the assigned
private counsel system was the only one used.
Expenditures
A total of $4,087,252 was expended for the operation of
the seven public defenders' offices during 1987-88. This
was an increase of $467,041 (12.9%) over the 1986-87 total
of $3,620,211.
1987-88 Caseload
The seven public defender offices disposed of cases
involving a total of 24,956 defendents during 1987-88.
This was an increase of 1,669 defendants, or 7.2%, over
the 23,287 defendants represented during 1986-87.
Additional information concerning the operation of
these offices is found in Part III of this Annual Report.
PUBLIC DEFENDERS
(As of June 30, 1988)
* District 3
Robert L. Shoffner, Greenville
District 12
Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville
District 15B
John Kirk Osborn, Chapel Hill
District 18
Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro
District 26
Isabel S. Day, Charlotte
District 27A
Rowell C. Cloninger, Jr., Gastonia
District 28
J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville
The public defender serves only two counties of the four in District 3:
Pitt and Carteret.
49
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Public Defenders
The Association of Public Defenders
(Officers as of June 30, 1988)
Marc D. Towler, President
James Williams, Vice President
Frederick Lind, Secretary-Treasurer
Marc D. Towler
50
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Office of the Appellate Defender
(Staff as of June 30, 1988)
Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender
Assistant Appellate Defenders
Louis D. Bilionis
David W. Dorey
Staples S. Hughes
Teresa McHugh
Mark D. Montgomery
Daniel R. Pollitt
M. Gordon Widenhouse
The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a
State-funded program on October 1 , 1981. (Prior to that
date, appellate defender services were funded by a one-year
federal grant.) The 1985 General Assembly made
permanent The Appellate Defender Office by repealing
its expiration provision. In accord with the assignments
made by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the
Appellate Defender and his staff to provide criminal
defense appellate services to indigent persons who are
appealing their convictions to the N. C. Supreme Court,
the N. C. Court of Appeals, or to Federal courts.
The Appellate Defender is appointed by, and carries
out his duties under the general supervision of the Chief
Justice. The Chief Justice may, consistent with the
resources available to the Appellate Defender and to
insure quality criminal defense services, authorize certain
appeals to be assigned to a local public defender office or
to private assigned counsel instead of to the Appellate
Defender.
1987-88 Caseload
As of July 1, 1987, the Appellate Defender had 82 cases
pending in the Supreme Court of North Carolina. During
the 1987-88 year, a total of 52 additional appeals to the
Supreme Court were assigned to the Appellate Defender's
Office, and during that year a total of 51 cases were
disposed of. This left 83 cases pending as of June 30, 1988.
During the 1987-88 year, the Appellate Defender and his
staff filed a total of 48 briefs in the Supreme Court.
As of July 1, 1987, the Appellate Defender had 113
cases pending in the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
During the 1987-88 year, a total of 79 additional appeals
to the Court of Appeals were assigned to the Appellate
Defender's Office, and during that year, a total of 1 1
1
cases were disposed of. This left 81 cases pending as of
June 30, 1988. The Appellate Defender and his staff filed
a total of 68 briefs in the Court of Appeals during the
1987-88 year.
51
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The North Carolina Courts Commission
(Members as of June 30, 1988)
Appointed by the Governor
Jonathan L. Rhyne, Jr., Lincolnton, Chairman
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Clyde M. Roberts, Marshall
Garland N. Yates, Asheboro
District Attorney
Warren Owen, Charlotte
Harold J. Long, Yadkinville
Clerk of Court
Dan R. Simpson, Morganton
Member, N. C. State Senate
Appointed by President of the Senate
(Lieutenant Governor)
Anthony E. Rand, Fayetteville
Member, N.C. Senate
Russell J. Hollers Troy
Henson P. Barnes, Goldsboro
Member, N.C. Senate
Alfred M. Goodwin, Louisburg
R.C. Soles, Jr., Tabor City
Member, N. C. Senate
Lillian O. Briant, Asheboro
Ex-Officio (Non-Voting)
O. William Faison, Raleigh
N.C. Bar Association Representative
Z. Creighton Brinson, Tarboro
N.C. State Bar Representative
Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Raleigh
Administrative Officer of the Courts
Appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Raleigh
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Robert C. Hunter, Marion
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Ralph S. Knott, Louisburg
Clerk of Court
Roy A. Cooper, III, Rocky Mount
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Robert C. Hunter, Marion
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Dennis A. Wicker, Sanford
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Appointed by the Chief Justice of the
N.C. Supreme Court
Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Raleigh
Associate Justice, N.C. Supreme Court
Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte
Judge, N.C. Court of Appeals
J. Milton Reed, Jr., Durham
Superior Court Judge
Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory
Superior Court Judge
Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids
District Court Judge
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton
District Court Judge
52
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The North Carolina Courts Commission
The North Carolina Courts Commission was reestab-lished
by the 1 979 General Assembly "to make continuing
studies of the structure, organization, jurisdiction, proce-dures
and personnel of the Judicial Department and of
the General Court of Justice and to make recommenda-tions
to the General Assembly for such changes therein as
will facilitate the administration ofjustice". Initially, the
Commission was comprised of 15 voting members, with
five each appointed by the Governor, the President of the
Senate (Lieutenant Governor), and the Speaker of the
House. The Commission also had three ex officio mem-bers
as shown above.
The 1981 General Assembly amended the statutes per-taining
to the Courts Commission, to increase the number
of voting members from 15 to 23, with the Governor to
appoint seven voting members, the President of the
Senate to appoint eight voting members, and the Speaker
of the House to appoint eight voting members. The non-voting
ex officio members remained the same: a represen-tative
of the North Carolina Bar Association, a represen-tative
of the North Carolina State Bar, and the Adminis-trative
Officer of the Courts.
The 1983 Session of the General Assembly further
amended G.S. 7A-506, to revise the voting membership of
the Commission. Effective July 1, 1983, the Commission
consists of 24 voting members, six to be appointed by the
Governor; six to be appointed by the Speaker of the
House; six to be appointed by the President of the Senate;
and six to be appointed by the Chief Justice of the North
Carolina Supreme Court. The Governor continues to
appoint the Chairman of the Commission, from among
its legislative members. The non-voting ex officio mem-bership
of three persons remains the same.
Of the six appointees of the Chief Justice, one is to be a
Justice of the Supreme Court, one is to be a Judge of the
Court of Appeals, two are to be judges of superior court,
and two are to be judges of district court.
Of the six appointees of the Governor, one is to be a
district attorney, one a practicing attorney, one a clerk of
superior court, and three are to be members or former
members of the General Assembly and at least one of
these shall not be an attorney.
Of the six appointees of the Speaker of the House, at
least three are to be practicing attorneys, and three are to
be members or formers members of the General Assem-bly,
and at least one of these three is not to be an attorney.
Of the six appointees of the President of the Senate, at
least three are to be practicing attorneys, three are to be
members or former members of the General Assembly,
and at least one is to be a magistrate.
During the 1987-88 year the Courts Commission had a
total of five meetings: October 30, 1987; February 26,
March 25, April 22, and May 6, 1988. All meetings were
held in Raleigh. Topics considered during the year were:
(1) alternative resolution programs, including media-tion,
arbitration, and summary jury trials; (2) securing
competent legal counsel for all indigent defendants in
criminal cases and providing adequate compensation for
counsel for indigents; (3) the infractions law: (4) proposed
legislation to delete obsoltet language from the statutes
on cross-indexing ofjudgments and lis pendens: (5) pro-posed
legislation to clarify magistrates' guilty plea juris-diction;
(6) proposed legislation to secure reimbursement
of expenses of counsel for indigent defendants.
The Commission unanimously voted to endorse the
proposed legislation relating to cross-indexing of judg-ments
and lis pendens and relating to magistrates1
guilty
plea jurisdiction, for consideration at the 1988 short legis-lative
session (if the proposals could, under regular legis-lative
rules, be taken up at the 1988 session). In addition,
at its May 6, 1988 meeting the Commission approved two
resolutions to be submitted to Legislative officials at the
1988 Session. One resolution endorsed and recommended
adequate funding of the indigent defense fund and the
other resolution recommended expansion of the indigent
screening program.
53
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Judicial Standards Commission
(Members as of June 30, 1988)
Appointed by the Chief Justice
Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Arnold,
Fuquay-Varina, Chairman
Superior Court Judge James M. Long,
Pilot Mountain
District Court Judge W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham
Appointed by the Governor
Pamela S. Gaither, Charlotte, Secretary
Albert E. Partridge, Jr., Concord
Elected by the Council of the N.C. State Bar
Rivers D. Johnson, Jr., Warsaw, Vice Chairman
Louis J. Fisher, Jr., High Point
Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary
Judge Gerald Arnold
54
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION
July 1, 1987 — June 30, 1988
The Judicial Standards Commission was established
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional
amendment approved by the voters at the general election
in November 1972.
Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Su-preme
Court may censure or remove any judge for willful
misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to per-form
his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice that brings the judicial
office into disrepute. In addition, upon recommendation
of the Commission, the Supreme Court may remove any
judge for mental or physical incapacity interfering with
the performance of his duties, which is, or is likely to
become, permanent.
Where a recommendation for censure or removal
involves ajustice of the Supreme Court, the recommenda-tion
and supporting record is filed with the Court of
Appeals which has and proceeds under the same author-ity
for censure or removal of a judge. Such a proceeding
would be heard by the Chief Judge of the Court of
Appeals and the six judges senior in service, excluding the
Court of Appeals judge who by law serves as the Chair-man
of the Judicial Standards Commission.
In addition to a recommendation of censure or remov-al,
the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary measure
known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a mechanism
administratively developed for dealing with inquiries
where the conduct does not warrant censure or removal,
but where some action is justified. Since the establishment
of the Judicial Standards Commission in 1973, repri-mands
have been issued in fifteen instances covering 21
inquiries.
During the July 1, 1987 - Jjne 30, 1988 fiscal year, the
Judicial Standards Commission met on July 10, October
16, December 18, March 25, and June 10.
A complaint or other information against a judge,
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the
Commission on its own motion, is designated as an
"Inquiry Concerning a Judge. "Thirty such inquiries were
pending as of July 1, 1987, and 98 inquiries were filed
during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a total
workload of 128 inquiries.
During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 1 1
3
inquiries, and 1 5 inquiries remained pending at the end of
the fiscal year.
The determinations of the Commission regarding the
113 inquiries disposed of during the fiscal year were as
follows:
( 1
)
93 inquiries were determined to involve evidentiary
rulings, length of sentences, or other matters not
within the Commission's jurisdiction rather than
questions of judicial misconduct;
(2) two inquiries were determined to involve allega-tions
of conduct which did not rise to such a level as
would warrant investigation by the Commission;
(3) three inquiries were consolidated with two other
matters in which investigations had been ordered;
(4) 14 inquiries were determined to warrant no further
action following completion of preliminary inves-tigations;
and
(5) one inquiry resulted in a recommendation of
censure.
Of the 15 inquiries pending at the end of the fiscal year:
(1) five inquiries were awaiting initial review by the
Commission; and
(2) ten inquiries were awaiting completion of a preli-minary
investigation or were subject to other
action by the Commission.
55
PART III
COURT RESOURCES
• Financial
• Personnel
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Under the State Constitution the operating expenses of
the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts)
"other than compensation to process servers and other
locally paid non-judicial officers" are required to be paid
from State funds. It is customary legislative practice for
the General Assembly to include appropriations for the
operating expenses of all three branches of State govern-ment
in a single budget bill, for a two-year period ending
on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. The budget for the
second year of the biennium is generally modified during
the even-year legislative session.
Building facilities for the appellate courts are provided
by State funds, but, by statute, the county governments
are required to provide from county funds for adequate
facilities for the trial courts within each of the 100
counties.
Appropriations from the State's General Fund for
operating expenses for all departments and agencies of
State government, including the Judicial Department,
totalled $5,715,172,032 for the 1987-88 fiscal year.
(Appropriations from the Highway Fund and appropria-tions
from the General Fund for capital improvements
and debt servicing are not included in this total.)
The appropriation from the General Fund for the
operating expenses of the Judicial Department for 1987-
88 was $ 1 6 1 , 1 28,433. (This included $2,532,298 for accrued
attorney fees for indigent defendants paid in July 1988.)
As illustrated in the chart below, this General Fund
appropriation for the Judicial Department comprised
2.8% of the General Fund appropriations for the operat-ing
expenses of all State agencies and departments.
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
APPROPRIATIONS FOR
OPERATING EXPENSES
$5,715,172,032
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
APPROPRIATION
$162,128,433
2.8%
59
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Appropriation from the State's general fund for operat-ing
expenses of the Judicial Department over the past
seven fiscal years are shown in the table below and in the
graph at the top of the following page. For comparative
purposes, appropriations from the general fund for oper-ating
expenses of all State agencies and departments
(including the Judicial Department) for the last seven
fiscal years are also shown in the table below and in the
second graph on the following page.
APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES
Judicial Department All State Agencies
Fiscal Year % Increase over % Increase over
Appropriation previous year Appropriation previous year
1981-1982 89,631,765 8.08 3,327,829,978 7.94
1982-1983 93,927,824 4.79 3,477,547,375 4.50
1983-1984 106,182,188 13.05 3,686,800,774 6.02
1984-1985 121,035,791 13.99 4,237,230,681 14.93
1985-1986 134,145,813 10.83 4,780,073,721 12.81
1986-1987 146,394,689 9.13 5,153,322,580 7.81
198

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

X/3 ,
N.C. DOCUMENTS
CLEARINGHOUSE
MJS 17 1989
^orttj (Earolma (Etmrt&STATE LIBRARY
RALEIGH
1987-88
JWmml Report
of tlje
JVomtmstntttOe (Bfiicz of tlje Courts
The Cover: The Lincoln County Courthouse in Lincolnton, North Carolina was
completed in 1923. The rectangular structure is of finely dressed stone with three-story,
flat-roofed wings flanking a taller central block with a gabled roof. Matching pedi-mented
Doric porticoes on the front and rear of the center section, a Doric frieze along
the sides, and antefixes decorating the corners and roof ridge give the building its
distinctive Greek character. Lincolnton was established as the county seat of Lincoln
County in 1785.
NORTH CAROLINA COURTS
1987-88
ANNUAL REPORT
of the
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
JUSTICE BUILDING
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
The Honorable James G. Exum, Jr., Chief Justice
The Supreme Court of North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Chief Justice:
In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes, I herewith transmit the
Twenty-second Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July I ,
1987 — June 30, 1988.
Fiscal year 1987-88 marks the fourth consecutive year with significant increases in filings and disposi-tions
in both the Superior and District Courts. During 1987-88, as compared to 1986-87, total case filings
increased by 6.9% in Superior Court and by 8.1% in District Court; dispositions increased by 4.7% in
Superior Court and by 9.0% in District Court. Because total filings were greater than total dispositions,
more cases were pending at the end of the fiscal year than were pending at the beginning.
Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, and
writing required to produce this annual report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal
responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Information Services Division.
The principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of
superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. The Clerk of the Supreme Court
and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals provided the case data relating to our appellate courts.
Without the responsible work of many persons across the State this report would not have been possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Freeman, Jr.
Director
»f
May 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Parti
The 1987-88 Judicial Year in Review
The 1987-88 Judicial Year in Review 1
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations in 1987-88
Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 7
The Present Court System 10
Organization and Operations
The Supreme Court 14
The Court of Appeals . 25
The Superior Courts 30
The District Courts 33
District Attorneys 38
Clerks of Superior Court 42
Juvenile Services Division 45
Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services 47
Public Defenders 49
Appellate Defender 51
The N.C. Courts Commission 52
The Judicial Standards Commission 54
Part III
Court Resources in 1987-88
Judicial Department Finances
Appropriations 59
Expenditures 62
Receipts 64
Distribution of Receipts 65
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 68
Judicial Department Personnel 75
Part IV
Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1987-88
Trial Courts Case Data 79
Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 83
District Court Division Caseflow Data 143
Tables, Charts and Graphs
Part II
Court System Organization and Operations in 1987-88
Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the
Present Court System 10
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina
Trial Courts 13
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 14
Supreme Court, Caseload Inventory 16
Supreme Court, Appeals Filed 17
Supreme Court, Petitions Filed 17
Supreme Court, Caseload Types 18
Supreme Court, Submission of Cases to Decision Stage 19
Supreme Court, Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 19
Supreme Court, Disposition of Appeals 20
Supreme Court, Manner of Disposition of Appeals 21
Supreme Court, Type of Disposition of Petitions 21
Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Disposed of,
1982-83—1987-88 22
Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed,
1982-83—1987-88 23
Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Cases 24
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 25
Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 27
Court of Appeals, Manner of Case Dispositions 27
Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1982-83—1987-88 28
Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 29
Judges of Superior Court 30
District Court Judges 33
District Attorneys 38
Clerks of Superior Court 42
Chief Court Counselors 46
Guardian Ad Litem Division Coordinators 48
Public Defenders 49
Appejlate Defenders 51
The N.C. Courts Commission 52
The Judicial Standards Commission 54
Part III
Court Resources in 1987-88
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 59
General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies
and Judicial Department 60
General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of All
State Agencies and Judicial Department 61
General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations 62
Judicial Department Receipts 64
Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 65
Tables, Charts and Graphs
Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the
Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 66
Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 69
Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 70
Assigned Counsel, Cases and Expenditures 71
Judicial Department Personnel 75
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
Superior Courts
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
District Courts,
Part IV
Trial Courts Caseflow Data in 1987-88
Caseload Trends 84
Caseload 85
Median Ages of Cases 86
Civil Cases Trends 87
Civil Case Filings By Case-Type 88
Civil Cases Inventory 89
Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition 93
Civil Cases, Manner of Disposition, By County 94
Ages of Civil Cases Pending 98
Ages of Civil Cases Disposed 102
Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 106
Filings and Dispositions For Estates and Special Proceedings 107
Trends in Criminal Cases Ill
Criminal Case Filings By Case-Type 112
Inventory of Criminal Cases 113
Manner of Disposition of Felonies 117
Manner of Disposition of Felonies, By County 118
Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors 122
Manner of Disposition of Misdemeanors, By County 123
Ages of Criminal Cases Pending 1 27
Ages of Criminal Cases Disposed 1 34
Filings and Dispositions 145
Filing and Disposition Trends of All Cases 146
Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 147
Civil Non-Magistrate Cases 148
Civil Non-Magistrate Filings By Case-Type 149
Civil Caseload Inventory 1 50
Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 1 54
Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases, By County 155
Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Pending 162
Ages of Domestic Relations Cases Disposed 166
Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer Cases Pending 170
Ages of General Civil and Magistrate Appeal/ Transfer Cases Disposed 174
Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions 178
Matters Alleged in Juvenile Petitions 180
Adjudicatory Hearings For Juvenile Matters 184
Trends of Criminal Cases 189
Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions 190
Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory 194
in
Tables, Charts and Graphs
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 198
District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition, By County 199
District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Pending 203
District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases Disposed 207
District Courts, Infraction Case Filings and Dispositions 211
IV
PARTI
THE 1987-1988 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
THE 1987-88 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's
Judicial Department is for the fiscal year which began
July 1, 1987 and ended June 30, 1988.
The Workload of the Courts
Case filings in the Supreme Court totaled 145 com-pared
with 196 filed during 1986-87. A total of 635 peti-tions
were filed in the Supreme Court, compared with 674
in 1986-87; and 67 petitions were allowed, compared with
99 in 1986-87.
For the Court of Appeals for 1 987-88, case filings were
1,351 compared with 1,288 for the 1986-87 year. Petitions
filed in 1987-88 totaled 446, compared with 458 during the
1986-87 year.
More detailed data on the appellate courts is included
in Part II of this Annual Report.
In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal)
increased by 6.9% to a total of 105,704 in 1987-88, com-pared
with 99,886 cases in 1986-87. Superior court case
dispositions also increased, to a total of 100,808, com-pared
with 96,308 in 1986-87. As, case filings during the
year exceeded case dispositions, the total number of cases
pending at the end of the year increased by 4,896.
Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital
commitment hearings, the statewide total of district court
filings (civil and criminal) during 1987-88 was 2,004,447,
an increase of 135,462 (7.2%) from 1986-87 filings of
1,868,985 cases. During 1987-88, a total of 608,845 infrac-tion
cases were filed along with a total of 419,407 criminal
motor vehicle cases, for a combined total of 1,028,252
cases. This combined total is an increase of 52,764 cases
(5.4%) above the 975,488 cases filed during 1986-87. Dur-ing
1987-88, filings of criminal non-motor vehicle cases in
the district courts increased by 46,579 (9.9%) to 514,710,
compared with 468,131 during 1986-87. Filings of civil
magistrate cases in the district courts increased by 29,881
(12.1%), to 277,336during 1987-88 compared with 247,455
during 1986-87.
Operations of the superior and district courts are sum-marized
in Part II of this Report, and detailed informa-tion
on the caseloads in the 100 counties and 34 judicial
districts is presented in Part IV.
1988 Legislative Highlights
Judicial, Prosecutorial, and Public Defender Districts
Chapters 1037 and 1056 of the 1987 Session Laws (1988
Session) make numerous conforming amendments to the
General Statutes, in light of the 1987 legislation on super-ior
court redistricting.
As a result of superior court redistricting, geographic
"districts" for the various components of the Judicial
Department are no longer necessarily coterminous. Ref-erences
in the General Statutes to a "judicial district" are
replaced by references to the "superior court district,"
"district court district," "prosecutorial district," and/ or
"public defender district" to which the particular statute
applies.
Chapter 1056 divides present Judicial Districts 12 and
1 6 into new Districts 1 2, 1 6 A, and 1 6B for the prosecutor-ial,
district court, and public defender districts. As a
result, these districts are coterminous with the corres-ponding
whole-country districts (or "sets of districts")
established in 1987 for the superior court division. The
legislation allocates existing personnel among these three
new districts; creates an additional district court judge-ship
effective July 1, 1989, allocated to district court
District 16 A; and effective January 1, 1989, establishes a
district attorney's office for a new prosecutorial District
16A and establishes two new public defender offices, for
public defender Districts 16A and 16B. In addition, effec-tive
January 1, 1989, the public defender office presently
serving Pitt and Carteret Counties in Judicial District 3 is
divided into two offices, for public defender districts 3A
(Pitt) and 3B (Carteret).
Chapter 1037 clarifies certain provisions of the 1987
redistricting legislation. New section G.S. 7A-41.1 (Chap-ter
1037, Section 2) specifies that there shall be one and
only one senior resident superior court judge for each
superior court "district" or "set of [superior court] dis-tricts."
A "set of districts" is defined to mean, in essence, a
group of districts that individually do not comprise an
entire county, but collectively are necessary to comprise
the entire county. A superior court "district" is a district
that does comprise one or more entire counties. Amend-ments
to G.S. 7A-47.3 (in Chapter 1037, Section 9) spec-ify
that all sessions of superior court are for the entire
county, regardless of how many superior court districts
there may be for the county; and that superior court
judges may be assigned under the rotation system to hold
the courts of either one "district" or one "set of districts."
Sessions of Superior Court Outside County Seat
Chapter 1037, Section 2.1, amending G.S. 7A-42 effec-tive
January 1, 1989, authorizes the senior resident super-ior
court judge of a county to order sessions of superior
court at any location outside the county seat when exigent
circumstances exist. The additional sessions must be
approved by the Chief Justice, and an order may issue
only after approval of the location and facilities by the
Administrative Office of the Courts, and after consulta-tion
with the Clerk and county officials. (Present provi-sions
of G.S. 7A-42, relating to sessions of Superior Court
outside the county seat in cities with a population of
35,000 or more, remain unchanged.)
Additional Seat of District Court
Effective July 1, 1989, Chapter 1075 authorizes an
additional seat of district court for district court District
3, in Havelock (Craven County).
Juvenile Code/Guardian ad Litem Revisions
Chapter 1090 amends several sections of the Juvenile
Coide, with the overall aim of imposing stricter standards
on removal of juveniles from the home and improving
THE 1987-88 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
protection of juveniles' rights. Effective June 1, 1989, the
services of the Guardian ad Litem Office within AOC are
extended to include appointment of a guardian ad litem,
in the discretion of the judge, in dependency cases. Effec-tive
immediately, the clerk's duties with regard to the
summons in juvenile cases are amended to specify that the
summons shall issue immediately after a petition is filed,
and tht the summons is to be delivered to any person
authorized to serve process (rather than to a law enforce-ment
officer in all cases). Also effective immediately,
specific findings are required before dispositional or other
orders may remove a juvenile from the home.
establish a schedule for paying the fees of attorneys
representing indigents on a per case basis, and report to
the 1989 Session of the General Assembly.
Death Penalty Resource Center
For fiscal 1988-89, the Death Penalty Resource Center
will be funded by AOC from the Indigent Persons' Attor-ney
Fee Fund, to a maximum of $191,505 (Chapter 1086,
Section 109). The Center is a four-position section of the
Appellate Defender's Office, previously funded from pri-vate
sources.
DWI, Commercial Vehicles
Chapter 1112 creates a new misdemeanor offense, driv-ing
while impaired in a commercial vehicle. A blood
alcohol content of 0.04 or more is sufficient to constitute
this offense (compared to a blook alcohol content of 0.10
or more driving while impired in other than a commercial
vehicle). The statutes for automatic, immediate ten-day
civil license revocation are also amended, to extend to
driving in a commercial vehicle with a blood alcohol
content of 0.04 or more. (Chapter 1 1 12 is effective June 1,
1989, and will expire June 30, 1989, in the absence of
action by the 1989 Session of the General Assembly.)
Investigative Grand Juries
Chapter 1 040 extends the authorization for investigative
grand juries in drug trafficking cases to July 1 , 1 99 1 . The
authorization for these special grand juries would other-wise
have expired October 1, 1988. In addition, an amend-ment
to G.S. 15A-622(h), effective October 1, 1988,
requires the concurrence of a committee of at least three
members of the Conference oif District Attorneys (in
addition to concurrence of the Attorneys General), before
a district attorney may request the convening of an inves-tigative
grand jury.
Indigent Persons' Attorney Fee Fund
For fiscal 1988-89, the General Assembly directed
AOC to allot portions of the funds in the Indigent Per-sons'
Attorney Fee Fund (approximately $13 million) to
each county, or to each district where superior and district
court districts are coterminous (Chapter 1086, Section
1 13, effective July 1, 1988). The allotment for each county
or district is to be in proportion to the numbers of indi-gent
persons in each county or district who were not
represented by a public defender during 1987-88.
Determination of an Indigent's Attorney's Fee
Chapter 1086, Section 113, amends G.S. 7A-458 to
specify that the fee of an attorney who represents an
indigent person is to be fixed by the judge who heard the
case, and deletes "the fee usually charged in similar cases"
from the factors the judge should consider when deter-mining
the fee. The General Assembly requested AOC to
Salaries, Longevity Pay, and Other Items
Funds were appropriated by the 1988 Session for a
4.5% pay raise for all officials and employees of the Judi-cial
Department.
The travel allowance for superior court judges under
G.S. 7A-44(a) was increased, effective January 1, 1989,
from $6,500 to $7,000 annually (Chapter 1086, Section
30).
Effective July 1, 1988, the pay for emergency justices
and judges is increased from $100 to $150 per day (Chap-ter
1086, Section 31).
Longevity pay was authorized for the Director of AOC
at the rate of longevity pay for superior court judges, and
longevity pay was authorized for the Assistant Director of
AOC at the rate of longevity pay for district court judges
(Chapter 1100, Section 15).
Longevity pay and salaries were increased for some
clerks of superior court (Chapter 1 100, Sections 16 and
17). The definition of "service" that is used to calculate a
clerk's longevity pay was expanded to include "service" as
an assistant clerk or as a superivsor of clerks within the
AOC. In addition, the salaries of some clerks were raised
by amending the population categories set forth in G.S.
7A-101(a), upon which clerks' salaries are based. As a
result, clerks in counties with population of 30,000 to
49,999 will be paid at a higher pay-category.
No funding for merit increases was provided. However,
Chapter 1086, Section 27, creates a 16-member Legisla-tive
Study Commission on a System of Merit Pay for
State Employees. The Commission is directed to report to
the 1989 Session of the General Assembly.
Employee Benefits
Retirement Benefits: Chapter 1 1 10 increases the retire-ment
benefits of state employees, by raising the accrual
rate (in G.S. 128-27) for calculating retirement benefits
from 1.58% to 1.60%; and allows accumulated sick leave
to be included in the amount of "creditable service"
earned for retirement or early retirement. Chapter 1 103,
amending G.S. 135-4, allows state employees to purchase
service credit toward retirement for extended perids of
leave without pay due to illness or injury.
Death Benefits: Chapter 1 108 increases the death
benefits payable for state employees. Death benefits
remain based on one year's salary, but the General
THE 1987-88 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW
Assembly established a minimum benefit of $25,000
regardless of salary, and raised the maximum benefit
from $20,000 to $50,000. In addition, death benefits are
now payable regardless of an employee's age; previously,
the benefit was payable only if an employee died prior to
age 70.
New Positions
The 1987 Session of the General Assembly approp-riated
funds for the following new positions effective
during fiscal 1988-89: eleven new district court judge-ships,
one each for Districts 3, 5, 7 10, 11, 16, 18, 19B, 21,
25, and 26, to be filled in the 1988 general election; one
superior court judgeship for new District 16B, to be filled
in the 1988 general election; five new assistant district
attorneys, one each for districts 3A, 17A, 19A, 19B, and
21; three secretaries and ten victim-witness assistant posi-tions
for district attorney offices; five new magistrate
positions to be allocated in accordance with G.S. 7A-
171(c); 14 positions in the juvenile court counselor pro-gram;
ten secretarial positions for the ten new senior
resident superior court judgeships created effective Janu-ary
1, 1989; one court reporter; one deputy clerk; and two
secretaries in public defender offices.
The 1988 Session of the General Assembly approp-riated
or authorized the use of funds for the following
additional positions: a second regular superior court
judgeship for District 1 6B, to be appointed by the Gover-nor;
two new fully staffed public defender offices for new
public defender districts 16A and 16B; a new district
attorney's office effective January 1, 1989, for Prosecutor-ial
District 16A, with the district attorney position to be
filled in the 1988 general election; an additional district
courtjudgeship for District 16A, effective July 1, 1989, to
be filled pursuant to G.S. 7A-142; ten new deputy clerk
positions, funded from existing funds, rather than any
new appropriation; and four existing positions within the
Appellate Defender's Office, previously funded by private
sources, to be funded from the Indigent Persons' Attor-ney
Fee Fund in 1988-89.
Total Appropriations
The 1988 Session of the General Assembly approp-riated
a total of $177,774,981
for the 1988-89 fiscal year.
to the Judicial Department
PART II
COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION
AND OPERATIONS
• Historical Development of Court System
• Present Court System
• Organization and Operations in 1987-88
mA
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
From its early colonial period North Carolina's judicial
system has been the focus of periodic attention and adjust-ment.
Through the years, there has been a repeated
sequence of critical examination, proposals for reform, and
finally the enactment of some reform measures.
Colonial Period
Around 1700 the royal governor established a General
(or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute developed
over the appointment of associate justices. The Assembly
conceded to the King the right to name the chiefjustice but
unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the power to appoint
the associate justices. Other controversies developed con-cerning
the creation and jurisdiction of the courts and the
tenure of judges. As for the latter, the Assembly's position
was that judge appointments should be for good behavior
as against the royal governor's decision for life appoint-ment.
State historians have noted that "the Assembly won
its fight to establish courts and the judicial structure in the
province was grounded on laws enacted by the legislature,"
which was more familiar with local conditions and needs
(Lefler and Newsome, 142). Nevertheless, North Carolina
alternated between periods under legislatively enacted
reforms (like good behavior tenure and the Court Bill of
1746, which contained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary
court system) and periods of stalemate and anarchy after
such enactments were nullified by royal authority. A more
elaborate system was framed by legislation in 1767 to last
five years. It was not renewed because of persisting dis-agreement
between local and royal partisans. As a result,
North Carolina was without higher courts until after Inde-pendence
(Battle, 847).
At the lower court level during the colonial period, judi-cial
and county government administrative functions were
combined in the authority of the justices of the peace, who
were appointed by the royal governor.
After the Revolution
When North Carolina became a state in 1 776, the colon-ial
structure of the court system was retained largely intact.
The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the county
court which continued in use from about 1670 to 1868
—were still held by the assembled justices of the peace in
each county. The justices were appointed by the governor
on the recommendation of the General Assembly, and they
were paid out of fees charged litigants. On the lowest level
of the judicial system, magistrate courts of limited jurisdic-tion
were held by justices of the peace, singly or in pairs,
while the county court was out of term.
The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the General
Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Law
and Equity. A court law enacted a year later authorized
three superior court judges and created judicial districts.
Sessions were supposed to be held in the court towns of
each district twice a year, under a system much like the one
that had expired in 1772. Just as there had been little
distinction in terminology between General Court and
Supreme Court prior to the Revolution, the terms Supreme
Court and Superior Court were also interchangeable dur-ing
the period immediately following the Revolution.
One of the most vexing governmental problems con-fronting
the new State of North Carolina was its judiciary.
"From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary caused
complaint and demands for reform. "(Lefler and Newsome,
291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflicting judge opin-ions,
and insufficient number of judges, and lack of means
for appeal were all cited as problems, although the greatest
weakness was considered to be the lack of a real Supreme
Court.
In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court
judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court of Conference
to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the districts.
This court was continued and made permanent by subse-quent
laws. The justices were required to put their opinions
in writing to be delivered orally in court. The Court of
Conference was changed in name to the Supreme Court in
1 805 and authorized to hear appeals in 1810. Because of the
influence of the English legal system, however, there was
still no conception of an alternative to judges sitting
together to hear appeals from cases which they had them-selves
heard in the districts in panels of as few as two judges
(Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an independent three-judge
Supreme Court was created for review of cases decided at
the Superior Court level.
Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in each
county were made mandatory in 1806, and the State was
divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six judges
were to sit in rotation, two judges constituting a quorum as
before.
The County Court of justices of the peace continued
during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of
local government.
After the Civil War
Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it
more democratic were made in 1868. A primary holdover
from the English legal arrangement - the distinction
between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. The
County Court's control of local government was abolished.
Capital offenses were limited to murder, arson, burglary
and rape, and the Constitution stated that the aim of
punishment was "not only to satisfy justice, but also to
reform the offender, and thus prevent crime". The member-ship
of the Supreme Court was raised to five, and the
selection of the justices (including the designation of the
chiefjustice) and superior court judges (raised in number to
12) was taken from the legislature and given to the voters,
although vacancies were to be filled by the governor until
the next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — The County Court of which three justices of the peace
constituted a quorum was eliminated. Its judicial
responsibilities were divided between the Superior Courts
and the individual justices of the peace, who were retained
as separate judicial officers with limited jurisdiction.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868
Constitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme
Court justices to three and the Superior Court judges to
nine. The General Assembly was given the power to
appoint justices of the peace, instead of the governor.
Most of the modernizing changes in the post-Civil War
Constitution, however, were left, and the judicial struc-ture
it had established continued without systematic
modification through more than half of the 20th cen-tury.
(A further constitutional amendment approved by
the voters in November, 1888, returned the Supreme
Court membership to five, and the number of superior
court judges to twelve.)
Before Reorganization
A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time sys-tematic
court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. This
accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the court
system was most evident at the lower, local court level,
where hundreds of courts specially created by statute
operated with widely dissimilar structure and jurisdiction.
By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent
major reforms was begun, the court system in North
Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme Court,
with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior court, with
general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statutory courts
of limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of the peace and
mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction.
At the superior court level, the State had been divided
into 30 judicial districts and 21 solicitorial districts. The
38 superior court judges (who rotated among the coun-ties)
and the district solicitors were paid by the State.
The clerk of superior court, who was judge of probate
and often also a juvenile judge, was a county official.
There were specialized branches of superior court in
some counties for matters like domestic relations and
juvenile offenses.
The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher
of these local court levels were more than 180 recorder-type
courts. Among these were the county recorder's
courts, municipal recorder's courts and township re-corder's
courts; the general county courts, county crim-inal
courts and special county courts; the domestic rela-tions
courts and the juvenile courts. Some of these had
been established individually by special legislative acts
more than a half-century earlier. Others had been created
by general law across the State since 1919. About half
were county courts and half were city or township
courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors (mostly
traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and sometimes
civil matters. The judges, who were usually part-time,
were variously elected or appointed locally.
At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had sim-ilar
criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties
up to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the
peace also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These
court officials were compensated by the fees they
exacted, and they provided their own facilities.
Court Reorganization
The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revi-sion
of the court system received the attention and sup-port
of Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who
encouraged the leadership of the North Carolina Bar
Association to pursue the matter. A Court Study Com-mittee
was established as an agency of the North Carol-ina
Bar Association, and that Committee issued its
report, calling for reorganization, at the end of 1958. A
legislative Constitutional Commission, which worked
with the Court Study Committee, finished its report
early the next year. Both groups called for the structur-ing
of an all-inclusive court system which would be
directly state-operated, uniform in its organization
throughout the State and centralized in its administra-tion.
The plan was for a simplified, streamlined and
unified structure. A particularly important part of the
proposal was the elimination of the local satutory courts
and their replacement by a single District Court; the
office of justice of the peace was to be abolished, and
the newly fashioned position of magistrate would func-tion
within the District Court as a subordinate judicial
office.
Constitutional amendments were introduced in the
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were
reintroduced and approved at the 1961 session. The
Constitutional amendments were approved by popular
vote in 1962, and three years later the General Assem-bly
enacted statutes to put the system into effect by
stages. By the end of 1970 all of the counties and their
courts had been incorporated into the new system,
whose unitary nature was symbolized by the name,
General Court of Justice. The designation of the entire
20th century judicial system as a single, statewide
"court," with components for various types and levels
of caseload, was adapted from North Carolina's earlier
General Court, whose full venue extended to all of the
17th century counties.
After Reorganization
Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has con-tinued.
In 1965, the Constitution was amended to pro-vide
for the creation of an intermediate Court of
Appeals. It was amended again in 1972 to allow for the
Supreme Court to censure or remove judges upon the
recommendation of a Judicial Standards Commission.
As for the selection of judges, persistent efforts were
made in the 1970's to obtain legislative approval of
amendments to the State Constitution, to appoint judges
according to "merit" instead of electing them by popu-lar,
partisan vote. The proposed amendments received
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM
the backing of a majority of the members of each Hinsdale, C. E., County Government in North Carolina. 1965
house, but not the three-fifths required to submit con- Edition.
, , r . . Ti Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina:
stitutional amendments to a vote of the people. It seems The History ofa southern State. 1963 Edition.
likely that this significant issue will be before the Sanders, John L., Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A
General Assembly again for consideration. Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of
Government.
Major Sources Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold, North Carolina Courts of
Battle, Kemp P., An Address on the History of the Supreme Court Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular
(Delivered in 1888). 1 North Carolina Reports 835-876. 1973.
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal
Recommendations
from Judicial
Standards Commission
SUPREME
COURT
7 Justices
Original Jurisdiction
All felony cases; civil
cases in excess of
$10,000*
Final Order of
Utilities Commission in
General Rate Case
COURT OF
APPEALS
12 Judges
SUPERIOR
COURTS
74 Judges
Decisions of
Most Administrative
Agencies
Original Jurisdiction
Probate and estates,
special proceedings
(condemnations,
adoptions, partitions,
foreclosures, etc.)
criminal cases
(for trial de novo)
*(2>
\l
civil cases
\ DISTRICT
COURTS
151 Judges
Clerks of Superior
Court
(100)
Magistrates
(640)
Decisions of Industrial
Commission, State Bar,
Property Tax Commission,
Commissioner of Insurance,
Bd. of State Contract Appeals
Original Jurisdiction
Misdemeanor cases not
assigned to magistrates;
probable cause hearings;
civil cases $10,000* or
less; juvenile proceedings;
domestic relations;
involuntary commitments
Original Jurisdiction
Accept certain misdemeanor
guilty pleas: worthless check
misdemeanors $1,000** or less;
small claims $1,500 or less
( 1
)
Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving comstitutional
questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may review Court of Appeals
decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance.
(2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals.
(3) As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in criminal cases in which the defendent has been sentenced to death or life
imprisonment, and in civil cases involving the involuntary annexation of territory by a municipality of 5,000 or more population. In all other cases
appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the trial courts in cases where delay
would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. (Under G.S. 7A-27, effective July 24, 1987, appeals in criminal cases
as a matter of right are limited to first degree murder cases in which there is a sentence of death or life imprisonment.)
*The district and superior courts have concurrent original jurisdiction in civil actions (G.S. 7A-242). However, the district court division is the proper
division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less; and the superior court division is the proper division
for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (G.S. 7A-243).
**Magistrate jurisdiction in worthless check cases increased from $500 to $1,000 effective October 1, 1987 (G.S. 7A-273).
10
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab-lishes
the General Court of Justice which "shall constitute
a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction,
operation, and administration, and shall consist of an
Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a
District Court Division."
The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals.
The Superior Court Division is comprised of the super-ior
courts which hold sessions in the county seats of the
100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped into
judicial districts (34 at the present time), and one or more
superior court judges are elected for each of the judicial
districts. A clerk of the superior court for each county is
elected by the voters of the county.
The District Court Division is comprised of the district
courts. The General Assembly is authorized to divide the
State into a convenient number of local court districts and
prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but district
court must sit in at least one place in each county. The
General Assembly has provided that districts for pur-poses
of the district court are coterminous with superior
court judicial districts. The Constitution also provides for
one or more magistrates to be appointed in each county
"who shall be officers of the district court."
The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains
the term, "judicial department," stating that "The General
Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial
department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully
pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the govern-ment,
nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other
than as permitted by this Article." The terms, "General
Court of Justice" and "Judicial Department" are almost,
but not quite, synonymous. It may be said that the Judi-cial
Department encompasses all of the levels of court
designated as the General Court of Justice plus all admin-istrative
and ancillary services within the Judicial Depart-ment.
The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between
the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of
courts are illustrated in the chart on the opposite page.
Criminal Cases
Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original juris-diction
of the district courts. Some misdemeanor offenses
are tried by magistrates, who are also empowered to
accept pleas of guilty to certain offenses and impose fines
in accordance with a schedule set by the Conference of
Chief District Court Judges. Most trials of misdemeanors
are by district court judges, who also hold preliminary,
"probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of felony
cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior courts.
Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the district
court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury
available at the district court level; appeal from the dis-trict
courts' judgments in criminal cases is to the superior
courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in life-imprisonment
or death sentence cases (which are appealed
to the Supreme Court), appeal from the superior courts is
to the Court of Appeals.
Civil Cases
The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges of
probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and
estates matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over
such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, con-demnations
under the authority of eminent domain, and
foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the
superior court.
The district courts have original jurisdiction in juvenile
proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for invol-untary
commitment to a mental hospital, and are the
"proper" courts for general civil cases where the amount
in controversy is $10,000 or less. If the amount in con-troversy
is $1,500 or less and the plaintiff in the case so
requests, the chief district court judge may assign the case
for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates' decisions
may be appealed to the district court. Trial by jury for
civil cases is available in the district courts; appeal from
the judgment of a district court in a civil case is to the
North Carolina Court of Appeals.
The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of
general civil cases where the amount in controversy is
more than $10,000. Appeals from decisions of most
administrative agencies are first within the jurisdiction of
the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in
civil cases is to the Court of Appeals.
Administration
The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of
the other courts of the General Court of Justice." (G.S.
7A-32(b)).
In addition to this grant of general supervisory power,
the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain
Judicial Department officials with specific powers and
responsibilities for the operation of the court system. The
Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing
rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts
and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supplement
those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court designates one of the judges of the Court
of Appeals to be its Chief Judge, who in turn is responsi-ble
for scheduling the sessions of the Court of Appeals.
The chart on page 1 1 illustrates specific responsibilities
for administration of the trial courts vested in Judicial
Department officials by statute. The Chief Justice
appoints the Director and an Assistant Director of the
Administrative Office of the Courts; this Assistant Direc-tor
also serves as the Chief Justice's administrative assist-ant.
The schedule of sessions of superior court in the 100
counties is set by the Supreme Court; assignment of the
State's rotating superior court judges is the responsibility
of the Chief Justice. Finally, the Chief Justice designates a
chief district court judge for each of the State's 34 judicial
11
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
districts from among the elected district court judges of
the respective districts. These judges have responsibilities
for the scheduling of the district courts and magistrates'
courts within their respective districts, along with other
administrative responsibilities.
The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible
for direction of non-judicial, administrative and business
affairs of the Judicial Department. Included among its
functions are fiscal management, personnel services,
information and statistical services, supervision of record
keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, liaison with the
legislative and executive departments of government,
court facility evaluation, purchase and contract, educa-tion
and training, coordination of the program for provi-sion
of legal counsel to indigent persons, juvenile proba-tion
and after-care, trial court administrator services,
planning, and general administrative services.
The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk
for both the superior and district courts. Until 1980, the
clerk also served as chairman of the county's calendar
committee, which set the civil case calendars. Effective
July 1, 1980, these committees were eliminated; day-to-day
calendaring of civil cases is now done by the clerk of
superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in some
districts, under the supervision of the senior resident
superior court judge and chief district court judge. The
criminal case calendars in both superior and district
courts are set by the district attorney of the respective
district.
12
THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts
CHIEF JUSTICE
and
SUPREME COURT
l
Administrative
Office of
the Courts
i
(35) District
Attorneys
(34) Senior Resident
Judges; (100) Clerks
of Superior Court
SUPERIOR
COURTS
(34) Chief District
Court Judges
DISTRICT
COURTS
'The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other trial
courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court judges, who
rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice.
2The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the
pleasure of the Chief Justice.
3The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other trial
courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 34 judicial districts from the judges elected in
the respective districts.
4The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the
Judicial Department.
5The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and
the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their respective
courts.
6 In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping
functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the supervision of the
chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees submitted by the clerk
of superior court.
13
THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
(As of June 30, 1988)
Chief Justice
JAMES G. EXUM, JR.
LOUIS B. MEYER
BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR.
HARRY C. MARTIN
Associate Justices
HENRY E. FRYE
JOHN WEBB
WILLIS P. WHICHARD
Retired Chief Justices
WILLIAM H. BOBBITT
SUSIE SHARP
JOSEPH BRANCH
I. BEVERLY LAKE
J. FRANK HUSKINS
Retired Justices
DAVID M. BRITT
Clerk
J. Gregory Wallace
Librarian
Frances H. Hall
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Supreme Court
At the apex of the North Carolina court system is the
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil
and criminal cases on appeal. The Chief Justice and six
associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by the
voters of the State. There are two terms of the Supreme
Court each year: a Spring Term commencing on the first
Tuesday in February and a Fall Term commencing on the
first Tuesday in September. The Court does not sit in
panels. It sits only en banc, that is, all members sitting on
each case.
Jurisdiction
The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the
Supreme Court is in the censure and removal of judges
upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judicial
Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jurisdic-tion
includes:
- cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals
(cases involving substantial constitutional ques-tions
and cases in which there has been dissent in
the Court of Appeals);
- cases on appeal by right from the Utilities Commis-sion
(cases involving final order or decision in a
general rate matter);
- criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior
courts (cases in which the defendant has been sen-tenced
to death or life imprisonment); and
- cases in which review has been granted in the
Supreme Court's discretion.
Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly
from the trial courts may be granted when delay would
likely cause subsantial harm or when the workload of the
Appellate Division is such that the expeditious adminis-tration
of justice requires it. However, most appeals are
heard only after review by the Court of Appeals.
Administration
The Supreme Court has general power to supervise and
control the proceedings of the other courts of the General
Court of Justice. The Court has specific power to pre-scribe
the rules of practice and procedure for the trial
court divisions, consistent with any rules enacted by the
General Assembly. The schedule of superior court ses-sions
in the 100 counties is approved yearly, by the
Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, the
Librarian of the Supreme Court Library, and the Appel-late
Division Reporter are appointed by the Supreme
Court.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and
an Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the
Chief Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from
among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief
District Court Judge from among the district judges in
each of the State's 34 judicial districts. He assigns superior
court judges, who regularly rotate from district to district,
to the scheduled sessions of superior court in the 100
counties, and he is also empowered to transfer district
court judges to other districts for temporary or special-ized
duty. The Chief Justice appoints three of the seven
members of the Judicial Standards Commission—a judge
of the Court of Appeals who serves as the Commission's
chairman, one superior court judge and one district court
judge. The Chief Justice also appoints six of the 24 voting
members of the N.C. Courts Commission: one associate
justice of the Supreme Court; one Court of Appeals
judge; two superior court judges; and two district court
judges. The Chief Justice also appoints the Appellate
Defender, and the Chief Hearing Officer of the Office of
Administrative Hearings.
Expenses of the Court, 1987-88
Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the
1987-88 fiscal year amounted to $2,352,654, an increase of
3.1% over total 1986-87 expenditures of $2,281,161.
Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 1 987-88 con-stituted
1.4% of all General Fund expenditures for the
operation of the entire Judicial Department during the
fiscal year.
Case Data, 1987-88
A total of 309 appealed cases were before the Supreme
Court during the fiscal year, 164 that were pending on
July 1,1987 plus 145 cases filed through June 30, 1988. A
total of 216 of these cases were disposed of, leaving 93
cases pending on June 30, 1988.
A total of 801 petitions (requests to appeal) were before
the Court during the 1987-88 year, with 726 disposed
during the year and 76 pending as of June 30, 1988. The
Court granted 67 petitions for review during 1987-88
compared to 99 for 1986-87.
More detailed data on the Court's workload is pres-ented
on the following pages.
15
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Supreme Court Caseload Inventory
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Petitions for Review
Civil domestic
Juvenile
Other civil
Criminal
Postconviction remedy
Administrative agency decision
Total Petitions for Review
Pending Pending
7/1/87 Filed Disposed 6/30/88
5 5 8 2
1 2 3
63 292 313 42
78 298 351 25
10 35 39 6
9 3 12
166 635 726 75
Appeals
Civil domestic
Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals
Juvenile
Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals
Other civil
Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment
Other criminal
Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals
Petitions for review granted that became postconviction
remedy cases
Administrative agency decision
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of
administrative agency decision
Total Appeals
Other Proceedings
Rule 16(b) additional issues re dissent
Extraordinary writs
Requests for advisory opinion
Rule amendments
Motions
Rule 31 Petitions to Rehear
3 3
2 3 4 I
22 15 29 8
22 41 40 23
24 11 14 21
69 47 93 23
5 1! 11 5
11 9 11 9
6 2 5 3
3 3 6
164 145 216 93
8 8
58 58
1 1
17 17
589 589
1 18 15 4
Total Other Proceedings 691 688
16
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1987-88
APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1987 - JUNE 30, 1988
CRIMINAL-DEATH
CRIMINAL LIFE
ADMIN. AGENCY
DOMESTIC RELATIONS
OTHER CIVIL
OTHER CRIMINAL
PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1987 - JUNE 30, 1988
OTHER CIVIL
JUVENILE 0.3%(2)
CRIMINAL
ADMIN. AGENCY 0.5% (3)
DOMESTIC RELATIONS 1%(5)
POST-CONVICTION
17
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Supreme Court Caseload Types by Judicial District and Division
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Judicial Judicial Total Death Life Other Civil Other Cases
Division District Cases Cases Cases Criminal Cases Cases Disposed
I 1 3 3 2
2 7 5 ! 1 4
3A 4 1 2 1 3
3B 3 1 2 3
4 12 2 5 1 4 8
5 13 1 11 1 7
6 9 3 4 2 5
7 6 1 2 3 5
X 8 6 2 6
SUBTOTAL 65 8 39 4 84 43
II 9 6 1 2 2 1 4
10 48 3 5 5 19 16 35
II 6 2 1 3 4
12 19 1 13 4 1 12
13 2 1 1 1
14 14 7 4 3 11
15A 7 1 3 1 2 6
15B 11 5 6 6
16 11 4 6
16A 1 1
SUBTOTAL 125 15 42 17 35 16 85
III 17A 2 2 1
17B 3 1 1 1 3
18 20 1 4 2 13 15
19A 6 1 4 1 3
19B II 1
20 90 1 4 4 4
21 2! 15 6 8
22 16 5 6 1 4 12
23 7! 5 2 6
SUBTOTAL 85 11 38 4 32 52
IV 24 3 2 1 2
25 10 3 3 1 3 3
26 14 2 4 8 6
27A 10 1 6 1 2 7
27B 2 1 1 2
28 11 I 4 1 6 6
29 12 3 81 1 5
30 6 1 3 1 I 4
SUBTOTAL 68 9 27 10 22 35
TOTALS 343 43 146 35 103 16 216
NOTE: Includes life and death sentence cases awaiting Record on Appeal and not yet formally docketed.
18
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage in Supreme Court
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Cases Argued
Civil
Criminal
Total cases argued
70
119
189
Submissions Without Argument
By motion of the parties (Appellate Rule 30 (d))
By order of the Court (Appellate Rule 30 (f))
Total submissions without argument
Total Cases Reaching Decision Stage
7
7
196
Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings by the Supreme Court
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Petitions for Review Granted* Denied
Dismissed/
Withdrawn
Total
Disposed
Civil Domestic
Juvenile
Other Civil
Criminal
Postconviction Remedy
Administrative Agency Decision
3
48
13
3
20
5
189
244
12
3
2
2
8
10
27
25
7
245
267
39
6
Total Petitions for Review 67 473 49 589
Other Proceedings
Rule 16(b) — Additional Issues
Extraordinary Writs
Advisory Opinion
Rule Amendments
Motions
8
58
1
17
489
Total Other Proceedings
"GRANTED" includes orders allowing relief without accepting the case as a full appeal.
573
19
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Signed Opinions
Reversed Total
Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed
Civil domestic 1 1 2 2 6
Juvenile
Other civil 16 5 5 2:; it 54
Criminal (death sentence) 6 4 d 14
Criminal (life sentence) 71 13 6 90
Other criminal 5 4 6 15
Postconviction remedy (!
Administrative agency decision 2 7 9
Totals 101 1! 60 10 188
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Decision
Reversed Total
Case Types Affirmed Modified Reversed Remanded Remanded Disposed
Civil domestic 1 i) 1
Juvenile
Other civil 12 1 13
Criminal (death sentence)
Criminal (life sentence) 1
Other criminal 5 5
Postconviction remedy {»
Administrative agency decision 1 1 2
Totals 20 22
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals by Dismissal or Withdrawal
Case Types
Dismissed or
Withdrawn
Civil domestic
Juvenile
Other civil
Criminal (death sentence)
Criminal (life sentence)
Other criminal
Post-conviction remedy
Administrative agency decision
Totals
20
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1987-88
MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1987-JUNE 30, 1988
DISMISSED/WITHDRAWN 3%
(6)
OPINIONS
PER CURIAM DECISIONS
TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT
JULY 1, 1987-JUNE 30, 1988
GRANTED
DENIED
DISMISSED/ WITHDRAWN
2!
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Appeals Docketed and Disposed of During the Years, 1982-83—1987-88
400
H Appeals Docketed
Appeals Disposed of
300
N
II
M
B
E
R
O
1
C
A
s
I
s
200
100
209
1982-83
20
1
I92
227
177
1984-84 1984-85
220
209
1985-86
200
196
216
145
1986-87 1987-88
22
NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT
Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years, 1982-83—1987-88
800
600
N
11
M
B
E
R
O
h
C
A
S
I
s
400
200
H Petitions Docketed
Petitions Allowed
1982-83
70
1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87
67
1987-88
23
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Supreme Court Processing Time for Disposed Cases
(Total time in days from docketing to decision)
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Civil domestic
Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals
Juvenile
Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals
Other civil
Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment
Other criminal
Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals
Petitions tor review granted that became postconviction remedy cases
Administrative agency decision
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative
agency decision
Total appeals
Number (Days) (Days)
of Cases Median Mean
3 190 197.3
4 271 238.0
29 184 222.4
40 186 200.9
14 462 475.4
93 282 495.2
II 188 236.0
II 337 325.6
5 273 363.4
6 154 219.0
216 256 361.0
24
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA*
Chief Judge
R.A. HEDRICK
GERALD ARNOLD
HUGH A. WELLS
CHARLES L. BECTON
CLIFTON E. JOHNSON
EUGENE H. PHILLIPS
SIDNEY S. EAGLES, JR.
Judges
SARAH PARKER
JACK COZORT
ROBERT F. ORR
K. EDWARD GREENE
DONALD L. SMITH
HUGH B. CAMPBELL
FRANK M. PARKER
EDWARD B. CLARK
Retired Judges
ROBERT M. MARTIN
CECIL J. HILL
MAURICE BRASWELL
Clerk
FRANCIS E. DAIL
*Asof 30 June 1988
25
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Court of Appeals
The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's
intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the
appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The
Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other
locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme
Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular
or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected by
popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for the
Court is designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court and serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the
Chief Justice.
Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the
Chief Judge responsible for assigning members of the
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal number
of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge presides
over the panel of which he or she is a member and desig-nates
a presiding judge for the other panels.
One member of the Court of Appeals, designated by the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serves as chairman of
the Judicial Standards Commission.
Jurisdiction
The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals con-sists
of cases appealed from the trial courts. The Court
also hears appeals directly from the Industrial Commis-sion;
certain final orders or decisions of the North Caro-lina
State Bar; and the Commissioner of Insurance; the
State Board of Contract Appeals; and appeals from cer-tain
final orders or decisions of the Property Tax Com-mission.
(Appeals from the decisions of other administra-tive
agencies lie first within the jurisdiction of the superior
courts.)
In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial
Standards Commission to censure or remove from office
a justice of the Supreme Court, the (non-binding) recom-mendation
would be considered by the Chief Judge and
the six judges next senior in service on the Court of
Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as the Commis-sion's
chairman). Such seven-member panel would have
sole jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recom-mendation.
Expenses of the Court, 1987-88
Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the
1987-88 fiscal year totalled $3,158,383, an increase of
7.2% over 1986-87 expenditures of $2,947,010. Expendi-tures
for the Court of Appeals during 1987-88 amounted
to 1 .9% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of
the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year.
Case Data, 1987-88
A total of 1,351 appealed cases were filed before the
Court of Appeals during the period July 1, 1987 —
June 30, 1988. A total of 1,272 cases were disposed of
during the same period. During 1987-88, a total of 446
petitions and 1 ,39 1 motions were filed before the Court of
Appeals.
Further detail on the workload of the Court of Appeals
is shown in the tables and graphs on the following pages.
26
FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Cases on Appeal
Civil cases appealed from district courts
Civil cases appealed from superior courts
Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies
Criminal cases appealed from superior courts
Total
Filings
309
515
44
483
1,351
Dispositions
1,272
Petitions
Allowed
Denied
Remanded
Total 446
71
375
446
Motions
Allowed
Denied
Remanded
Total
Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions
961
430
1,391 1,391
3,188 3,109
MANNER OF CASE DISPOSITIONS COURT OF APPEALS
July 1, 1987-June 30, 1988
Cases Disposed by Written Opinion
Cases Affirmed
Cases Cases In Part, Reversed Other Cases Total Cases
Affirmed Reversed In Part Disposed Disposed
833 252 85 102 1,272
27
FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
Fiscal Years 1982-83 Through 1987-88
3000
1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88
Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases and petitions (not motions) in the Court of Appeals.
28
co
0D3
6/5
s >
w 5
H
c/3 a
>- «
GO (/) *> H u
tt
£ 1/5
O Q
u __
a H %i Z TJ w 3
CD -S w A
OS
wK
u
H JZ
+*uOz
c5
6/
(LI
e
15
3
3O
u -o a >>
2
a!
y
3 O—
a.
3 3 8*
o
00 u -
o i: x S3
.H 13
5 "C
2 §
'£ '£
VI Cfl "3 wa CO '_2 3
.1
-o
q
3
3
•3
& "3
'3 w .c c/3 o o o
u C '•5 3 o *•
•a u o _c « 3
3 _j CJ 1> (J
yj u _E «* & •5 u
. — V5 *-; c/5
»tf T3 c '5
va
o o C o m E w '"2 3 "("X
3 u.
O D.
c o s u U U-.
. 0. l>
J3
!M en
W5 --h "5
o co
-a
uc
3
15-2
u3
I— aj CO
5P > i; 3
o 3
C/)
>
-5
CO
«5
"C a 2 .23 2hUQ
—
i
29
JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT*
(As of June 30, 1988)
District
1
2
3
[0
12
13
14
FIRST DIVISION
J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City
Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City
William C. Griffin, Jr., Williamston
David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville
Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City
Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville
James R. Strickland, Jacksonville
Bradford Tillery, Wilmington
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington
Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids
Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro
Charles B. Winberry, Rocky Mount
James D. Llewellyn, Kinston
Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro
SECOND DIVISION
Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg
Henry W. Hight, Jr., Henderson
Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh
Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh
Donald W. Stephens, Raleigh
Howard E. Manning, Jr., Raleigh
Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn
Darius B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville
Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville
Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown
Thomas H. Lee, Durham
Anthony M. Brannon, Durham
James M. Read, Durham
15A Jasper B. Allen, Jr., Burlington
15B F. Gordon Battle, Hillsboro
16 B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg
District
17A
17B
19A
19B
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27A
27B
28
29
30
THIRD DIVISION
Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., Wentworth
James M. Long, Pilot Mountain
W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro
Thomas W. Ross, Greensboro
Joseph John, Greensboro
Ralph A. Walker, Greensboro
Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer
James C. Davis, Concord
Russell G. Walker, Jr., Asheboro
F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro
William H. Helms, Wingate
William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem
Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem
Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville
C. Preston Cornelius, Morresville
Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro
FOURTH DIVISION
Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone
Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory
Claude S. Sitton, Morganton
Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte
Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte
Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte
W. Terry Sherrill, Charlotte
Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia
John M. Gardner, Shelby
Robert D. Lewis, Asheville
C. Walter Allen, Asheville
Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton
James U. Downs, Franklin
Janet M. Hyatt, Waynesville
'In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first.
30
SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT
James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem
John B. Lewis, Jr., Farmville
Richard D. Boner, Charlotte
Bruce B. Briggs, Mars Hill
Jack B. Crawley, Jr., Raleigh
Marvin K. Gray, Charlotte
Lamar Gudger, Asheville
I. Beverly Lake, Jr., Raleigh
Carlton E. Fellers, Raleigh
Samuel T. Currin, Raleigh
EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT
Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton
Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton
James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh
The Conference of Superior Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1988)
James M. Long, Pilot Mountain, President
Robert D. Lewis, Asheville, President-Elect
William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem, Vice President
Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville, Secretary-Treasurer
D. B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville and
James R. Strickland, Jacksonville,
Additional Executive Committe Member
Judge James M. Long
31
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Superior Courts
North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris-diction
trial courts for the state. In 1987-88, there were 64
"resident" superior court judges elected to office in the 34
judicial districts for eight-year terms by Statewide ballot.
In addition, ten "special" superior court judges are
appointed by the Governor.
Jurisdiction
The superior court has original jurisdiction in all felony
cases and in those misdemeanor cases which originate by
grand jury indictment. (Most misdemeanors are tried first
in the district court, from which conviction may be
appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a jury.
No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in district
court.) The superior court is the proper court for the trial
of civil cases where the amount in controversy exceeds
$10,000, and it has jurisdiction over appeals from admin-istrative
agencies except the Industrial Commission, cer-tain
rulings of the Commissioner of Insurance, the Board
of Bar Examiners of the North Carolina State Bar, the
Board of State Contract Appeals, and the Property Tax
Commission. Appeals from these agencies lie directly to
the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Regardless of the
amount in controversy, the original civil jurisdiction of
the superior court does not include domestic relations
cases, which are heard in the district courts, or probate
and estates matters and certain special proceedings heard
first by the clerk of superior court. Rulings of the clerk are
within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court.
Administration
The 100 counties of North Carolina were grouped into
34 judicial districts during 1986-87. Each district has at
least one resident superior court judge who has certain
administrative responsibilities for his home district, such
as providing for civil case calendaring procedures. (Crimi-nal
case calendars are prepared by the district attorneys.)
In districts with more than one resident superior court
judge, the judge senior in service on the superior court
bench exercises these supervisory powers.
The judicial districts are grouped into four divisions for
the rotation of superior court judges, as shown on the
map on Page 31. Within the division, a resident superior
court judge is required to rotate among the judicial dis-tricts,
holding court for at least six months in each, then
moving on to his next assignment. A special superior
court judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the
100 counties. Assignments of all superior court judges are
made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under
the Constitution of North Carolina, at least two sessions
(a week each) of superior court are held annually in each
of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties have
more than the constitutional minimum of two weeks of
superior court annually. Many larger counties have
superior court in session about every week in the year.
Expenditures
A total of $1 5,978,747 was expended on the operations
of the superior courts during the 1987-88 fiscal year. This
included the salaries and travel expenses for the 74 super-ior
court judges, and salaries and expenses for court
reporters and secretarial staff for superior court judges.
The 1 987-88 expenditures for the superior courts amount-ed
to 9.65% of total General Fund expenditures for the
operations of the entire Judicial Department during the
1987-88 fiscal year.
Caseload
Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of
105,704 cases were filed in the superior courts during
1987-88, an increase of 6,818 cases (6.9%) from the total
of 98,886 cases that were filed in 1986-87. There were
increases in filings in all case categories: civil cases, felo-nies,
and misdemeanor appeals.
Superior court case dispositions increased from 96,308
in 1986-87 to 100,808 in 1987-88. Dispositions of civil and
felony cases increased, while dispositions of misdemeanor
appeals decreased.
More detailed information on the flow of cases through
the superior courts is included in Part IV of this Report.
32
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1988)
District
1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City
John R. Parker, Manteo
2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington
Samuel G. Grimes, Washington
James W. Hardison, Wiliamston
3 E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville
J. Randal Hunter, New Bern
Willie L. Lumpkin, III, Morehead City
James E. Martin, Bethel
James E. Ragan, Oriental
H. Horton Rountree, Greenville
4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill
William M. Cameron, Jr., Jacksonville
Wayne G. Kimble, Jr., Jacksonville
Leonard W. Thagard, Clinton
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville
5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington
Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington
Charles E. Rice, III, Wilmington
Elton Glenn Tucker, Wilmington
6 Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck
Robert E. Williford, Lewiston
7 George Britt, Tarboro
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson
Quentin T. Sumner, Rocky Mount
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson
8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro
Joseph E. Setzer, Jr., Goldsboro
9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford
Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton
Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford
10 George F. Bason, Raleigh
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh
William A. Creech, Raleigh
George R. Greene, Raleigh
Joyce A. Hamilton, Raleigh
Jerry W. Leonard, Raleigh
Fred M. Morelock, Raleigh
Louis W. Payne, Jr., Raleigh
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh
District
1
1
Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield
William Christian, Sanford
Edward H. McCormick, Lillington
Owen H. Willis, Jr., Dunn
12 Sol. G. Cherry, Fayetteville
John S. Hair, Jr., Fayetteville
Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville
Anna E. Keever, Fayetteville
Warren L. Pate, Raeford
Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Fayetteville
13 William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville
Dewey J. Hooks, Jr., Whiteville
Jerry A. Jolly, Tabor City
David G. Wall, Elizabethtown
14 David Q. LaBarre, Durham
Richard Chaney, Durham
Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., Durham
Carolyn D. Johnson, Durham
Kenneth C. Titus, Durham
15A W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham
Spencer B. Ennis, Burlington
James K. Washburn, Burlington
15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill
Lowry M. Betts, Pittsboro
Patricia S. Hunt, Chapel Hill
16 John S. Gardner, Lumberton
Adelaide G. Behan, Lumberton
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton
17A Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville
Robert R. Blackwell, Reidsville
Philip W. Allen, Yanceyville
17B Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy
Clarence W. Carter, King
18 Paul T. Williams, Greensboro
Sherry F. Alloway, Greensboro
Robert E. Bencini, Jr., High Point
William L. Daisy, Greensboro
Edmund Lowe, High Point
Lawrence C. McSwain, Greensboro
J. Bruce Morton, Greensboro
William A. Vaden, Greensboro
19A Frank M. Montgomery, Salibury
Robert M. Davis, Salisbury
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord
Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis
*The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first.
33
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
(As of June 30, 1988)
District
19B William M. Neely, Asheboro
Richard M. Toomes, Asheboro
20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro
Michael E. Beale, Southern Pines
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle
Kenneth W. Honneycutt, Monroe
Tanya T. Wallace, Carthage
21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem
Lorretta C. Biggs, Clemmons
James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem
Roland H. Hayes, Winston-Salem
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem
William B. Reingold, Winston-Salem
22 Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville
George T. Fuller, Lexington
Kimberly T.Harbinson, Taylorsville
Robert W. Johnson, Statesville
23 Samuel L. Osborne, Wilkesboro
Edgar B. Gregory, Wilkesboro
Michael E. Helms, Wilkesboro
24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland
Charles P. Ginn, Boone
R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk
25 L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory
Ronald E. Bogle, Hickory
Stewart L. Cloer, Hickory
Jonathan L. Jones, Hickory
Timothy S. Kincaid, Newton
*The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first.
District
26
27A
27B
James E. Lanning, Charlotte
Marilyn R. Bissell, Charlotte
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte
Richard A. Elkins, Charlotte
Shirley L. Fulton, Charlotte
Resa L. Harris, Charlotte
Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte
William G. Jones, Charlotte
Theodore P. Matus, II, Charlotte
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte
Lawrence B. Langson, Gastonia
Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia
Harley B. Gaston, Jr., Belmont
Timothy L. Patti, Gastonia
Catherine C. Stevens, Gastonia
George W. Hamrick, Shelby
James T. Bowen, Lincolnton
John K. Fonvielle, Shelby
28 Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden
Gary S. Cash, Fletcher
Robert L. Harrell, Asheville
Peter L. Roda, Asheville
29 Robert T. Gash, Brevard
Loto J. Greenlee, Marion
Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville
30 John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy
Steven J. Bryant, Bryson City
Danny E. Davis, Waynesville
34
DISTRICT COURT JUDGES*
The Association of District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1988)
Sol G. Cherry, Fayetteville, President
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury, Vice President
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston, Secretary-Treasurer
George M. Britt, Tarboro
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville
W.S. Harris, Jr., Graham
Charles P. Ginn, Boone
Additional Executive Committee Members
Judge Sol. G. Cherry
35
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The District Courts
North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with
original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of the
cases handled by the State's court system. There were 151
district court judges serving in 34 judicial districts during
1987-88. These judges are elected to four-year terms by
the voters of their respective districts.
A total of 640 magistrate positions were authorized as
of June 30, 1988. Of this number, about 100 positions
were specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed by
the senior resident superior court judge from nominations
submitted by the clerk of superior court of their county,
and they are supervised by the chief district court judge of
their district.
Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtually
all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in most
felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary com-mitments
and recommitments to mental hospitals, and
domestic relations cases. Effective September 1 , 1986, the
General Assembly decriminalized many minor traffic
offenses. Such offenses, previously charged as misdemea-nors,
are now "infractions," defined as non-criminal vio-lations
of law not punishable by imprisonment. The dis-trict
court division has original jurisdiction for all infrac-tion
cases. The district courts have concurrent jurisdiction
with the superior courts in general civil cases, but the
district courts are the proper courts for the trial of civil
cases where the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less.
Upon the plaintiff's request, a civil case in which the
amount in controversy is $1,500 or less, may be desig-nated
a "small claims" case and assigned by the chief
district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magis-trates
are empowered to try worthless check criminal
cases when the value of the check does not exceed $500. In
addition, they may accept written appearances, waivers of
trial, and pleas of guilty in such worthless check cases
when the amount of the check is $500 or less, the offender
has made restitution, and the offender has fewer than four
previous worthless check convictions. Magistrates may
accept waviers of appearance and pleas of guilty in mis-demeanor
or infraction cases involving traffic, alcohol,
boating, hunting and fishing violation cases, for which a
uniform schedule of fines has been adopted by the Con-ference
of Chief District Judges. Magistrates also conduct
initial hearings to fix conditions of release for arrested
defendants, and they are empowered to issue arrest and
search warrants.
Administration
A chief district judge is appointed for each judicial
district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from
among the elected judges in the respective districts. Sub-ject
to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each chief
judge exercises administrative supervision and authority
over the operation of the district courts and magistrates in
his district. Each chief judge is responsible for scheduling
sessions of district court and assigningjudges; supervising
the calendaring of noncriminal cases; assigning matters to
magistrates; making arrangements for court reporting
and jury trials in civil cases; and supervising the discharge
of clerical functions in the district courts.
The chief district court judges meet in conference at
least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual con-ference
adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and
fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks
of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance
and guilty pleas.
Expenditures
Total expenditures for the operation of the district
courts in 1987-88 amounted to $29,939,853. This is an
increase of 11.3% over 1986-87 expenditures of
$26,908,723. Included in this total are the personnel costs
of court reporters and secretaries as well as the personnel
costs of the 151 district court judges and approximately
640 magistrates. The 1 987-88 total is 1 8. 1 % of the General
Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial
Department, about the same percentage share of total
Judicial Department expenditures that the district courts
took for the 1986-87 fiscal year.
Caseload
During 1987-88 the statewide total number of district
court filings (civil and criminal) increased 135,462 (7.2%)
over the total number reported for 1986-87. Not including
juvenile proceedings and mental hospital commitment
hearings, the filing total in 1987-88 was 2,004,447. Much
of this increase is attributable to increases in criminal
motor vehicle and infraction filings. Considering criminal
motor vehicle and infraction cases together there was an
increase of 52,764 cases (5.4%) above the number of such
cases filed in 1986-87. Filings of criminal non-motor vehi-cle
cases increased by 46,579 (9.9%), and filings of civil
magistrate cases increased by 29,881 (12.1%) above the
numbers of cases filed in these categories in 1986-87.
More detailed information on district court civil and
criminal caseloads and on juvenile case activity is con-tained
in Part IV of this Report.
36
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The District Courts
The Conference of Chief District Court Judges
(Officers as of June 30, 1988)
Robert H. Lacey, Newland, President
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury, Vice President
John S. Gardner, Lumberton, Secretary-Treasurer
Judge Robert H. Lacey
37
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
(As of June 30, 1988)
District
1 H. P. WILLIAMS, JR., Elizabeth City
2 MITCHELL D. NORTON, Washington
3A THOMAS D. HAIGWOOD, Greenville
3B WILLIAM D. McFADYEN, New Bern
4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville
5 JERRY L. SPIVEY, Wilmington
6 DAVID H. BEARD, JR., Murfreesboro
7 HOWARD S. BONEY, JR., Tarboro
8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro
9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford
10 C. COLON WILLOUGHBY, JR., Raleigh
1
1
JOHN W. TWISDALE, Smithfield
12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville
13 MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Whiteville
14 RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham
15A STEVE A. BALOG, Graham
15B CARL R. FOX, Chapel Hill
16 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton
District
17A THURMAN B. HAMPTON, Wentworth
17B HAROLD D. BOWMAN, Dobson
18 HORACE M. KIMEL, JR., Greensboro
19A JAMES E. ROBERTS, Concord
19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro
20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe
21 W. WARREN SPARROW, Winston-Salem
22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington
23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro
24 JAMES THOMAS RUSHER, Marshall
25 ROBERT E. THOMAS, Newton
26 PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte
27A CALVIN B. HAMRICK, Gastonia
27B WILLIAM C. YOUNG, Shelby
28 ROBERT W. FISHER, Asheville
29 ALAN C. LEONARD, Rutherfordton
30 ROY H. PATTON, JR., Waynesville
38
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The District Attorneys
The Conference of District Attorneys
(Executive Committee as of June 30, 1987)
Michael F. Easley, Presdient
Ronald L. Stephens, President- Elect
H.P. Williams, Vice President
Edward W. Grannis, Jr..
Thomas D. Haigwood
Roy H. Patton, Jr.
C. Colon Willoughby, Jr.
H.W. Zimmerman, Jr.
The District Attorneys Association
(Officers as of June 30, 1987)
Michael F. Easley, Bolivia, President
H.P. Williams, Elizabeth City, Vice President
Ronald L. Stephens, Durham, Vice President for
Legislative Affairs
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Jr., Bolivia, Secretary-
Treasurer
District Attorney
Michael F. Easley
39
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The District Attorneys
The State is divided into 35 prosecutorial districts
which, with one exception, correspond to the 34 judicial
districts. By act of the 1981 Session of the General
Assembly, the 3rd Judicial District is divided into two
separate prosecutorial districts, Prosecutorial Districts
3A and 3B, effective October 1, 1981. Prosecutorial Dis-trict
3A consists of Pitt County, and Prosecutorial Dis-trict
3B is comprised of Craven, Carteret, and Pamlico
(G.S. 7A-60). A district attorney is elected by the voters in
each of the 35 districts for four-year terms.
Duties
The district attorney represents the State in all criminal
actions brought in the superior and district courts in his
district, and is responsible for ensuring that infraction
cases are prosecuted efficiently. In addition to his prosec-utorial
functions, the district attorney is responsible for
calendaring criminal cases for trial.
Resources
Each district attorney may employ on a full-time basis
the number of assistant district attorneys authorized by
statute for his district. As of June 30, 1988, a total of 225
assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 35
prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 26
(Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff (19 assistants)
and the district attorney of seven judicial districts (15 A,
15B, 17A, 17B, 19B, 23, 24) had the smallest staff (three
assistants).
Each district attorney is authorized to employ an
administrative assistant to aid in preparing cases for trial
and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district
attorney in 18 of the 35 districts is authorized to employ
an investigatorial assistant who aids in the investigation
of cases prior to trial. All district attorneys are authorized
to employ a victim and witness coordinator.
Expenditures
A total of $19,014,218 was expended in 1987-88 for the
35 offices of district attorney. In addition, a total of
$100,943 was expended for the District Attorney's Con-ference
and its staff.
1987-1988 Caseload
A total of 88,948 criminal cases were filed in the super-ior
courts during 1987-88, consisting of 55,284 felony
cases and 33,664 misdemeanor appeals from the district
courts. The total number of criminal filings in the super-ior
courts in the previous year was 83,478. The increase of
5,470 cases in 1987-88 represents a 6.6% increase over the
1986-87 total.
Total criminal cases disposed of by the superior courts
in 1987-88 amounted to 85,123. There were 53,420 felony
dispositions; the number of misdemeanor cases disposed
of was 31,703. Compared with 1986-87, total criminal
case dispositions increased by 3,987 over the 81,136 cases
disposed of in that fiscal year.
The median ages of 1987-88 criminal cases at disposi-tion
in the superior courts were 86 days for felony cases
and 70 days for misdemeaor appeals. In 1986-87, the
median age of felony cases at disposition was 9 1 days, and
the median age at disposition for misdemeanor appeals
was 71 days.
The number of criminal cases disposed of by jury trial
in the superior courts increased slightly from 3,072 in
1986-87 to 3,111 in 1987-88, an increase of 1.3%. As in
past years, the proportion of total criminal cases disposed
by jury was small—3.8% in 1986-87 compared to 3.7% in
1987-88. This small number of cases, however, requires
the great proportion of superior court time and resources
devoted to handling the criminal caseload.
By contrast, in 1987-88 a majority (45,600 or 53.6%) of
criminal case dispositions in superior courts were pro-cessed
on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a trial.
This percentage represents a slight increase over the pro-portion
of guilty plea dispositions reported for 1986-87
(52.1%).
"Dismissal by district attorney" accounted for a signifi-cant
percentage of all criminal case dispotions during
1987-88—a total of 23,657 cases, or 27.8% of all disposi-tions.
This proportion is comparable to that recorded for
prior years. Many of the dismissals involved the situa-tions
of two or more cases pending against the same
defendant, resulting in a plea bargain agreement where
the defendant pleads guilty to some charges in exchange
for a dismissal of others.
There was an increase in the number of "Speedy Trial
Act" dismissals in superior courts, from 48 in 1986-87 to
52 in 1987-88.
The total number of criminal cases disposed of in the
superior courts was 3,825 cases less than the total number
of case filed in 1987-88. Consequently, the number of
criminal cases pending in suprioer court increased from
27,229 at the beginning of the fiscal year to a total at year's
end of 31,054, an increase of 14.0%.
The median age of pending felony cases in the superior
courts decreased from 88 days on June 30, 1987 to 79 days
on June 30, 1988. The median age of pending misdemea-nor
appeals also decreased—from 83 days on June 30,
1987 to 78 days on June 30, 1988.
Consideration of district court criminal caseloads is
affected by the existence of a new case category in the
district courts, "infractions. "Effective September 1, 1986,
many minor traffic offenses were decriminalized and
thereafter charged as infractions, defined as non-criminal
violations of law not punishable by imprisonment.
Although non-criminal, district attorneys are responsible
for the prosecution of these cases.
Nearly all infraction cases were criminal motor vehicle
cases in prior years. Therefore, for purposes of comparing
40
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
current to prior year criminal caseloads, motor vehicle
filings and dispositions in prior years are compared to
filings and dispositions of motor vehicle cases plus infrac-tions
in 1987-88.
In the district courts, a total of 1 ,542,962 criminal cases
and infractions were filed during 1987-88. This total con-sisted
of 419,407 criminal motor vehicle cases, 608,845
infraction cases, and 514,710 criminal non-motor vehicle
cases. A comparison of total filings in 1987-88 with total
filings in 1986-87 (1,443,619) reveals an increase in district
court criminal and infraction filings of 99,343 cases, or
6.9%. Filings of non-motor vehicle cases rose by 46,579
cases (9.9%), from 468,131 cases in 1986-87 to 514,710
cases in 1987-88. Filings of motor vehicle plus infraction
cases increased by 52,764 cases (5.4%), from 975,488 in
1986-87 to 1,028,252 in 1987-88.
Total dispositions of motor vehicle and infraction cases
in the district courts amounted to 994,387 cases during
1987-88 (401,855 motor vehicle dispositions and 592,532
infraction dispositions). As in prior years, a substantial
portion of such cases are disposed by waiver of appear-ance
and entry of pleas of guilty (or "responsibility" in
infraction cases) before a clerk or magistrate. During
1987-88, 506,999 (5 1 .0%) of motor vehicle and infraction
cases were disposed by waiver. This substantial number of
cases did not, of course, require action by the district
attorneys' offices and should not be regarded as having
been a part of the district attorneys' caseload. The remain-ing
487,388 infraction and motor vehicle cases (186,022
infraction and 301 ,332 motor vehicle cases) were disposed
by means other than waiver. This balance was 59,022
cases (or 13.8%) more than the 428,366 non-waiver motor
vehicle dispositions in 1986-87. (The clerks of court do
not report motor vehicle criminal cases or infractions by
case file number to the Administrative Office of the
Courts. Only summary total number of filings and dispo-sitions
are reported. Therefore, it is not possible by
computer-processing to obtain pending case data for the
motor vehicle criminal case or infraction case categories.)
With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case dispo-sitions,
a total of 500,529 such cases were disposed of in
district courts in 1987-88. As with superior court criminal
cases, the most frequent method of disposition was by
entry of guilty plea; the next most frequent was dismissal
by the district attorney. Some 177,010 cases, or 35.4% of
the dispositions were by guilty pleas. An additional
138,798 cases, or 27.7% of the total were disposed of by
prosecutor dismissal. The remaining cases were disposed
of by waiver (11.3%), trial (8.2%), as a felony probable
cause matter (9.1%), or by other means (8.3%).
During 1987-88, the median age at disposition of non-motor
vehicle criminal cases was 30 days, compared with
28 days at disposition for 1986-87.
Total non-motor vehicle criminal dispositions were
14,181 cases less than the total of such filings during
1 987-88. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal cases
pending at year's end was 97,866, compared with a total of
83,685 at the beginning of the year, an increase of 1 4, 1 8
1
(16.9%) in the number of pending cases. The median age
for pending non-motor vehicle cases rose from 54 days on
June 30, 1987 to 57 days on June 30, 1988.
Additional information on the criminal caseloads in
superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this
Report.
41
CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT
(As of June 30, 1988)
COUNTY CLERK OF COURT COUNTY
Alamance Louise B. Wilson Johnston
Alexander Seth Chapman Jones
Alleghany Rebecca J. Gambill Lee
Anson R. Frank Hightower Lenoir
Ashe Jerry L. Roten Lincoln
Avery Robert F. Taylor Macon
Beaufort Thomas S. Payne, III Madison
Bertie John Tyler Martin
Bladen Hilda H. Coleman McDowell
Brunswick Diana R. Morgan Mecklenburg
Buncombe J. Ray Elingburg Mitchell
Burke Major A. Joines Montgomery
Cabarrus Estus B. White Moore
Caldwell Jeanette Turner Nash
Camden Catherine W. McCoy New Hanover
Carteret Darlene Leonard Northampton
Caswell Janet H. Cobb Onslow
Catawba Phyllis B. Hicks Orange
Chatham Janice Oldham Pamlico
Cherokee Rose Mary Crooke Pasquotank
Chowan Marjorie H. Hollowell Pender
Clay James H. McClure Perquimans
Cleveland Ruth S. Dedmon Person
Columbus Lacy R. Thompson Pitt
Craven Dorothy Pate Polk
Cumberland George T. Griffin Randolph
Currituck Sheila R. Doxey Richmond
Dare Betty Mann Robeson
Davidson Martha S. Nicholson Rockingham
Davie Delores C. Jordan Rowan
Duplin John A. Johnson Rutherford
Durham James Leo Carr Sampson
Edgecombe Curtis Weaver Scotland
Forsyth Frances P. Storey Stanly
Franklin Ralph S. Knott Stokes
Gaston Betty B. Jenkins Surry
Gates Terry L. Riddick Swain
Graham O.W. Hooper, Jr. Transylvania
Granville Mary Ruth C. Nelms Tyrrell
Greene Joyce L. Harrell Union
Guilford Barbara G. Washington Vance
Halifax Ellen C. Neathery Wake
Harnett Georgia Lee Brown Warren
Haywood William G. Henry Washington
Henderson Thomas H. Thompson Watauga
Hertford Richard T. Vann Wayne
Hoke Juanita Edmund Wilkes
Hyde Lenora R. Bright Wilson
Iredell Angelia T. Roberts Yadkin
Jackson Frank Watson, Jr. Yancey
CLERK OF COURT
Will R. Crocker
Ronald H. Metts
Lucille H. York
Claude C. Davis
Pamela C. Huskey
Anna I. Carson
James W. Cody
Phyllis G. Pearson
Ruth B. Williams
Robert M. Blackburn
Linda D. Woody
Charles M. Johnson
Rachel H. Comer
Rachel M. Joyner
Louise D. Rehder
R. Jennings White, Jr.
Everitte Barbee
Shirley L. James
Mary Jo Potter
Frances W. Thompson
Frances D. Basden
Walter W. White
W. Thomas Humphries
Sandra Gaskins
Judy P. Arledge
Lynda B. Skeen
Catherine S. Wilson
Dixie I. Barrington
Frankie C. Williams
Francis Glover
Keith H. Melton
Charlie T. McCullen
C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr.
David R. Fisher
Pauline Kirkman
David J. Beal
Sara Robinson
Marian M. McMahon
Nathan T. Everett
Nola H. McCollum
Lucy Longmire
John M. Kennedy
Richard E. Hunter, Jr.
Timothy L. Spear
John T. Bingham
David B. Brantly
Wayne Roope
Nora H. Hargrove
Harold J. Long
F. Warren Hughes
42
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Clerks of Superior Court
Association of Clerks of Superior Court
(Officers as of June 30, 1988)
Frances W. Thompson, Pasquotank County,
President
James L. Carr, Durham County
First Vice President
Ray Elingburg, Buncombe County
Second Vice President
Judy Arledge, Polk County
Secretary
C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr., Scotland County
Treasurer
Frances W. Thompson
43
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Clerks of Superior Court
A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for a four-year
term by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 coun-ties.
The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide special
proceedings and is, ex officio, judge of probate, in addi-tion
to performing record-keeping and administrative
functions for both the superior and district courts of his
county.
Jurisdiction
The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court
includes the probate of wills and administration of dece-dents'
estates. It also includes such "special proceedings"
as adoptions, condemnations of private property under
the public's right of eminent domain, proceedings to
establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain proceed-ings
to administer the estates of minors and incompetent
adults. The right of appeal from the clerks'judgments in
such cases lies to the superior court.
The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue
search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and
other process necessary to execute the judgments entered
in the superior and district courts of his county. For
certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is autho-rized
to accept defendants' waiver of appearance and plea
of guilty and to impose a fine in accordance with a sche-dule
established by the Conference of Chief District
Court Judges.
Administration
The clerk of superior court performs administrative
duties for both the superior and district courts of his
county. Among these duties are the maintenance of court
records and indexes, the control and accounting of funds,
and the furnishing of information to the Administrative
Office of the Courts.
In most counties, the clerk continues to perform certain
functions related to preparation of civil case calendars,
and in many counties, the clerk's staff assists the district
attorney in preparing criminal case calendars as well.
Policy and oversight responsibility for civil case calendar-ing
is vested in the State's senior resident superior court
judges and chief district court judges. However, day-to-day
civil calendar preparation is the clerk's responsibility
in all districts except those served by trial court ad-ministrators.
Expenditures
A total of $50,954,569 was expended in 1987-88 for the
operation of the 100 clerk of superior court offices. In
addition to the salaries and other expenses of the clerks
and their staffs, this total includes expenditures for jurors'
fees, and witness expenses.
Total expenditures for clerks' offices in 1987-88
amounted to 30.8% of the General Fund expenditures for
the operations of the entire Judicial Department.
1987-88 Caseload
During 1987-88, estate case filings totalled 45,013
which represents a 4.0% increase over the 43,285 case filed
in 1986-87. Estate case dispositions totalled 43,288 cases
in 19876-88, or 2.9% more than the previous year's total of
42,070.
A total of 41,881 special proceedings was filed before
the 100 clerks of superior courts in 1987-88. This is an
increase of 2,595 cases (6.6%) from the 39,286 filings in
the previous fiscal years. Special proceedings dispositions
totalled 37,951 cases, or 17.5% more than the previous
year's total of 32,309.
The clerks of superior court are also responsible for
handling the records of all case filings and dispositions in
the superior and district courts. The total number of
superior court case filings during the 1987-88 year was
105,704 and the total number of district court filings, not
including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital com-mitment
hearings, was 2,004,447.
More detailed information on the estates and special
proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this
Report.
44
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Juvenile Services Division
The Juvenile Services Division of the Administrative
Office of the Courts provides intake, probation and after-care
services to juveniles who are before the District
Courts for delinquent matters, i.e., violations of the crimi-nal
code, including motor vehicle violations; and for
undisciplined matters, such as running away from home,
being truant, and being beyond the parents' disciplinary
control.
Intake is the screening of complaints alleging delin-quent
or undisciplined behavior by children, to determine
whether petitions should be filed. During the 1987-88 year
a total of 28,906 complaints were brought to the attention
of intake counselors. Of this number, 19,002 (66%) were
approved for filing, and 9,904 (34%) were not approved
for filing.
Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of children
in their own communities. Probation is authorized by
judicial order. Aftercare service is provided for juveniles
after their release from a training school. (Protective
supervision is also a form of court-ordered supervision
within the community; and this service is combined with
probation and aftercare.)
In 1987-88 a total of 17,086 juveniles were supervised in
the probation and aftercare program.
Expenditures
The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The
expenditures for fiscal year 1987-88 totalled $1 1,334,027.
This was an increase of 7.8% over the 1986-87 expendi-tures.
The 1987-88 expenditures amounted to 6.8% of all
General Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire
Judicial Department, close to the same percentage share
of total Judicial Department expenditures for the Di-vision
as in the previous fiscal year.
Administration
The Administrator of the Juvenile Services Division is
appointed by the Director of the Administrative Office of
the Courts. A chief court counselor is appointed for each
judicial district by the Administrator of the Juvenile Ser-vices
Division, with the approval of the Chief District
Court Judge and the Administrative Officer of the
Courts. Subject to the Administrator's general supervi-sion,
each chief court counselor exercises administrative
supervision over the operation of the court counseling
services in the respective districts.
Juvenile Services Division Staff
(As of June 30, 1988)
Thomas A. Danek, Administrator
Nancy C. Patteson, Area Administrator
Edward F. Taylor, Area Administrator
John T. Wilson, Area Administrator
Rex B. Yates, Area Administrator
M. Harold Rogerson, Jr., Program Specialist
Arlene J. Kincaid, Administrative Officer
45
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Juvenile Service Division
(As of June 30, 1988)
Judicial
District Chief Court Counselors
1 Donald Alexander
2 Joseph A. Paul
3 Eve C. Rogers
4 Ida Ray Miles
5 Phyllis Roebuck
6 John R. Brady
7 Pam Honeycutt
8 Lynn C. Sasser
9 Cecil T. Lewis, Jr.
10 Larry C. Dix
1! Henry C. Cox
12 Phil T. Utley
13 Jimmy E. Godwin
14 Fred Elkins
15A Harry L. Derr
15B Donald Hargrove
Judicial
District Chief Court Counselors
\b Robert H. Hughes
17Aand 17B Martha M. Lauten
18 J. Manley Dodson
19A and 19B James C. Queen
20 Jimmy L. Craig
21 James J. Weakland
22 Carl T. Duncan
23 C. Wayne Dixon
24 Lynn Hughes
25 Lee Cox
26 James A. Yancey
27A Charles Reeves
27B Gloria Newman
28 Louis Parrish
29 Kenneth E. Lanninj
30 Betty G. Alley
THE COURT COUNSELORS ASSOCIATION
(Officers for 1987-88)
Executive Committee Members
Carey Collins President
Carl Duncan, President- Elect
Pat Wolfe, Seretary
Dennis Cotten, Treasurer
Amie Haith, Parliamentarian
1985-88
Jane Clare
Bruce Stanback
Board Members
1986-89 1987-90
Richard Alligood Gloria Newman
Marion Brewer Blake Belcher
Anne Loy Charles Reeves
Carey Collins
46
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services
Program Services
When a peition alleging abuse or neglect of a juvenile is
filed in district court, the judge appoints a trained volun-teer
guardian ad litem and an attorney advocate to work
together to represent the child's best interests. The attor-ney
protects the child's legal rights while ensuring that the
volunteer guardian has appropriate access to the court
process. The trained volunteer investigates the child's
situation and works with the attorney to report the child's
needs to the court and to make recommendations for case
disposition and any necessary continuing supervision
until court intervention is no longer required. During
1 987-88, a total of 989 volunteers were active in the North
Carolina program and represented a total of 5,0 1 1 abused
and neglected children. These volunteers participated in
5,434 court hearings and gave approximately 75,000
volunteer hours to casework and training in the State's
guardian ad litem program.
Expenditures
During 1 987-88, total expenditures for the guardian ad
litem program amounted to $1,332,851. Of this amount,
$5 14,257 was for program attorney fees and $8 1 8,594 was
for program administration. The total included reimbur-sement
of volunteers' expense of $41,158 (covering 64,752
casework hours for 5,0 1 1 abused and neglected children).
This compares with 1986-87 total expenditure of
$1,1 17,720, with 755 volunteers representing, 3,837 child-ren
and providing 37,444 casework hours with reimbur-sement
expenses of $28,778.
Administration
The Office of Guardian Ad Litem Services, established
by the General Assembly in 1983, is a division of the
Administrative Office of the Courts. The Director of the
Administrative Offie of the Courts appoints the Adminis-trator
of the Office of Guardian Ad Litem Service and
appoints members of a Guardian Ad Litem Advisory
Committee to work with the Administrator, who is
responsible for planning and directing the guardian ad
litem services program through the State.
The Administrator is assisted by two regional manag-ers,
each of whom supervises the development and
implementation of services for a segment of judicial dis-tricts,
directing the local program, providing assistance in
training programs for volunteers, and resolving opera-tional
problems in the districts.
A coordinator is employed for 30 of the State's 34
judicial districts to recruit, screen, train and supervise
volunteers. Seven of these coordinators were added in
fiscal year 1987-88. Program coordinators contact com-munity
groups, local agencies, the courts, and the media
in order to develop volunteer participation, solicit sup-port
from key officials, provide public education about
the program, and cultivate services for children. The
coordinators plan an initial sixteen-hour training course
for new veolunteers, match children (who are before the
courts) with volunteers, implement continued training for
experienced guardians, and provide supervision of, and
consultation and support to, volunteers. Other coordina-tor
responsibilities are to assure that in each case the
attorney receives information from the volunteer assigned
to the case and that the court receives timely oral or
written reports each time a child's case is heard. (Coordi-nators
were not employed during 1987-88 for four judicial
districts in which the case load was too small to justify a
coordinator position. In those counties, the contract
attorney served as the volunteer coordinator.)
Guardian Ad Litem Staff
(As of June 30, 1988)
Virginia C. Weisz, Administrator
Cindy Mays, Regional Manager
Marilyn Stevens, Regional Manager
47
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Guardian ad Litem Division
(As of June 30, 1988)
Judicial Judicial
District Coordinator District Coordinator
1 Veola Spivey 15A Eleanor Ketcham
2 Jennifer Leggett 15B& 19B Floyd Wicker
3 Carol Mattocks 16 Gladys Pierce
4 Jean Hawley 18 Sam Parrish
5 Jane Brister 19A Amy Collins
6 Patsey Moseley-Moss 20 Martha Sue Hall
7 Sandra Pittman 21 Linda Garrou
8 Claudia Kadis 22 Pam Ashmore
9 Sarah Sponenberg 25 Anglea Phillips
10 Lloyd Inman 26 Judi Strause
12 Brownie Smathers 27A&B Sindy Waggoner
13 Pam Ward & 28 Jean Moore
Betty Buck 29 Barbara King
14 Cy Gurney Elkins 30 Celia Larson
48
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Public Defenders
During 1987-88, there were seven public defender offi-ces
in North Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 3,* 12,
15B, 18, 26, 27A, and 28. The public defender for each
district is appointed by the senior resident superior court
judge of that district from a list of not less than two and
not more than three names nominated by written ballot of
the attorneys resident in the district who are licensed to
practice law in North Carolina. Their terms are four
years. Each public defender is by statute provided a min-imum
of one full-time assistant public defender and addi-tional
full-time or part-time assistants as may be autho-rized
by the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Entitlement of Indigents to Counsel
A person is determined to be indigent if he is found
"financially unable to secure legal representation." He is
entitled to State-paid legal representation in: any pro-ceeding
which may result in (or which seeks relief from)
confinement; a fine of $500 or more; or extradition to
another State; a proceeding alleging mental illness or
incapacity which may result in hospitalization, steriliza-tion,
or the loss of certain property rights; and juvenile
proceedings which may result in confinement, transfer to
superior court for a felony trial, or termination of paren-tal
rights.
Most of the cases of State-paid representation of indi-gents
in the districts with public defenders are handled by
the public defender's office. However, the court may in
certain circumstances—such as existence of a potential
conflict of interest—assign private counsel to represent an
indigent defendant. In the other 28 districts, the assigned
private counsel system was the only one used.
Expenditures
A total of $4,087,252 was expended for the operation of
the seven public defenders' offices during 1987-88. This
was an increase of $467,041 (12.9%) over the 1986-87 total
of $3,620,211.
1987-88 Caseload
The seven public defender offices disposed of cases
involving a total of 24,956 defendents during 1987-88.
This was an increase of 1,669 defendants, or 7.2%, over
the 23,287 defendants represented during 1986-87.
Additional information concerning the operation of
these offices is found in Part III of this Annual Report.
PUBLIC DEFENDERS
(As of June 30, 1988)
* District 3
Robert L. Shoffner, Greenville
District 12
Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville
District 15B
John Kirk Osborn, Chapel Hill
District 18
Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro
District 26
Isabel S. Day, Charlotte
District 27A
Rowell C. Cloninger, Jr., Gastonia
District 28
J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville
The public defender serves only two counties of the four in District 3:
Pitt and Carteret.
49
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
Public Defenders
The Association of Public Defenders
(Officers as of June 30, 1988)
Marc D. Towler, President
James Williams, Vice President
Frederick Lind, Secretary-Treasurer
Marc D. Towler
50
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Office of the Appellate Defender
(Staff as of June 30, 1988)
Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender
Assistant Appellate Defenders
Louis D. Bilionis
David W. Dorey
Staples S. Hughes
Teresa McHugh
Mark D. Montgomery
Daniel R. Pollitt
M. Gordon Widenhouse
The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a
State-funded program on October 1 , 1981. (Prior to that
date, appellate defender services were funded by a one-year
federal grant.) The 1985 General Assembly made
permanent The Appellate Defender Office by repealing
its expiration provision. In accord with the assignments
made by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the
Appellate Defender and his staff to provide criminal
defense appellate services to indigent persons who are
appealing their convictions to the N. C. Supreme Court,
the N. C. Court of Appeals, or to Federal courts.
The Appellate Defender is appointed by, and carries
out his duties under the general supervision of the Chief
Justice. The Chief Justice may, consistent with the
resources available to the Appellate Defender and to
insure quality criminal defense services, authorize certain
appeals to be assigned to a local public defender office or
to private assigned counsel instead of to the Appellate
Defender.
1987-88 Caseload
As of July 1, 1987, the Appellate Defender had 82 cases
pending in the Supreme Court of North Carolina. During
the 1987-88 year, a total of 52 additional appeals to the
Supreme Court were assigned to the Appellate Defender's
Office, and during that year a total of 51 cases were
disposed of. This left 83 cases pending as of June 30, 1988.
During the 1987-88 year, the Appellate Defender and his
staff filed a total of 48 briefs in the Supreme Court.
As of July 1, 1987, the Appellate Defender had 113
cases pending in the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
During the 1987-88 year, a total of 79 additional appeals
to the Court of Appeals were assigned to the Appellate
Defender's Office, and during that year, a total of 1 1
1
cases were disposed of. This left 81 cases pending as of
June 30, 1988. The Appellate Defender and his staff filed
a total of 68 briefs in the Court of Appeals during the
1987-88 year.
51
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The North Carolina Courts Commission
(Members as of June 30, 1988)
Appointed by the Governor
Jonathan L. Rhyne, Jr., Lincolnton, Chairman
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Clyde M. Roberts, Marshall
Garland N. Yates, Asheboro
District Attorney
Warren Owen, Charlotte
Harold J. Long, Yadkinville
Clerk of Court
Dan R. Simpson, Morganton
Member, N. C. State Senate
Appointed by President of the Senate
(Lieutenant Governor)
Anthony E. Rand, Fayetteville
Member, N.C. Senate
Russell J. Hollers Troy
Henson P. Barnes, Goldsboro
Member, N.C. Senate
Alfred M. Goodwin, Louisburg
R.C. Soles, Jr., Tabor City
Member, N. C. Senate
Lillian O. Briant, Asheboro
Ex-Officio (Non-Voting)
O. William Faison, Raleigh
N.C. Bar Association Representative
Z. Creighton Brinson, Tarboro
N.C. State Bar Representative
Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Raleigh
Administrative Officer of the Courts
Appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Raleigh
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Robert C. Hunter, Marion
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Ralph S. Knott, Louisburg
Clerk of Court
Roy A. Cooper, III, Rocky Mount
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Robert C. Hunter, Marion
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Dennis A. Wicker, Sanford
Member, N.C. House of Representatives
Appointed by the Chief Justice of the
N.C. Supreme Court
Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Raleigh
Associate Justice, N.C. Supreme Court
Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte
Judge, N.C. Court of Appeals
J. Milton Reed, Jr., Durham
Superior Court Judge
Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory
Superior Court Judge
Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids
District Court Judge
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton
District Court Judge
52
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The North Carolina Courts Commission
The North Carolina Courts Commission was reestab-lished
by the 1 979 General Assembly "to make continuing
studies of the structure, organization, jurisdiction, proce-dures
and personnel of the Judicial Department and of
the General Court of Justice and to make recommenda-tions
to the General Assembly for such changes therein as
will facilitate the administration ofjustice". Initially, the
Commission was comprised of 15 voting members, with
five each appointed by the Governor, the President of the
Senate (Lieutenant Governor), and the Speaker of the
House. The Commission also had three ex officio mem-bers
as shown above.
The 1981 General Assembly amended the statutes per-taining
to the Courts Commission, to increase the number
of voting members from 15 to 23, with the Governor to
appoint seven voting members, the President of the
Senate to appoint eight voting members, and the Speaker
of the House to appoint eight voting members. The non-voting
ex officio members remained the same: a represen-tative
of the North Carolina Bar Association, a represen-tative
of the North Carolina State Bar, and the Adminis-trative
Officer of the Courts.
The 1983 Session of the General Assembly further
amended G.S. 7A-506, to revise the voting membership of
the Commission. Effective July 1, 1983, the Commission
consists of 24 voting members, six to be appointed by the
Governor; six to be appointed by the Speaker of the
House; six to be appointed by the President of the Senate;
and six to be appointed by the Chief Justice of the North
Carolina Supreme Court. The Governor continues to
appoint the Chairman of the Commission, from among
its legislative members. The non-voting ex officio mem-bership
of three persons remains the same.
Of the six appointees of the Chief Justice, one is to be a
Justice of the Supreme Court, one is to be a Judge of the
Court of Appeals, two are to be judges of superior court,
and two are to be judges of district court.
Of the six appointees of the Governor, one is to be a
district attorney, one a practicing attorney, one a clerk of
superior court, and three are to be members or former
members of the General Assembly and at least one of
these shall not be an attorney.
Of the six appointees of the Speaker of the House, at
least three are to be practicing attorneys, and three are to
be members or formers members of the General Assem-bly,
and at least one of these three is not to be an attorney.
Of the six appointees of the President of the Senate, at
least three are to be practicing attorneys, three are to be
members or former members of the General Assembly,
and at least one is to be a magistrate.
During the 1987-88 year the Courts Commission had a
total of five meetings: October 30, 1987; February 26,
March 25, April 22, and May 6, 1988. All meetings were
held in Raleigh. Topics considered during the year were:
(1) alternative resolution programs, including media-tion,
arbitration, and summary jury trials; (2) securing
competent legal counsel for all indigent defendants in
criminal cases and providing adequate compensation for
counsel for indigents; (3) the infractions law: (4) proposed
legislation to delete obsoltet language from the statutes
on cross-indexing ofjudgments and lis pendens: (5) pro-posed
legislation to clarify magistrates' guilty plea juris-diction;
(6) proposed legislation to secure reimbursement
of expenses of counsel for indigent defendants.
The Commission unanimously voted to endorse the
proposed legislation relating to cross-indexing of judg-ments
and lis pendens and relating to magistrates1
guilty
plea jurisdiction, for consideration at the 1988 short legis-lative
session (if the proposals could, under regular legis-lative
rules, be taken up at the 1988 session). In addition,
at its May 6, 1988 meeting the Commission approved two
resolutions to be submitted to Legislative officials at the
1988 Session. One resolution endorsed and recommended
adequate funding of the indigent defense fund and the
other resolution recommended expansion of the indigent
screening program.
53
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
The Judicial Standards Commission
(Members as of June 30, 1988)
Appointed by the Chief Justice
Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Arnold,
Fuquay-Varina, Chairman
Superior Court Judge James M. Long,
Pilot Mountain
District Court Judge W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham
Appointed by the Governor
Pamela S. Gaither, Charlotte, Secretary
Albert E. Partridge, Jr., Concord
Elected by the Council of the N.C. State Bar
Rivers D. Johnson, Jr., Warsaw, Vice Chairman
Louis J. Fisher, Jr., High Point
Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary
Judge Gerald Arnold
54
ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1987-88
THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION
July 1, 1987 — June 30, 1988
The Judicial Standards Commission was established
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional
amendment approved by the voters at the general election
in November 1972.
Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Su-preme
Court may censure or remove any judge for willful
misconduct in office, willful and persistent failure to per-form
his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice that brings the judicial
office into disrepute. In addition, upon recommendation
of the Commission, the Supreme Court may remove any
judge for mental or physical incapacity interfering with
the performance of his duties, which is, or is likely to
become, permanent.
Where a recommendation for censure or removal
involves ajustice of the Supreme Court, the recommenda-tion
and supporting record is filed with the Court of
Appeals which has and proceeds under the same author-ity
for censure or removal of a judge. Such a proceeding
would be heard by the Chief Judge of the Court of
Appeals and the six judges senior in service, excluding the
Court of Appeals judge who by law serves as the Chair-man
of the Judicial Standards Commission.
In addition to a recommendation of censure or remov-al,
the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary measure
known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a mechanism
administratively developed for dealing with inquiries
where the conduct does not warrant censure or removal,
but where some action is justified. Since the establishment
of the Judicial Standards Commission in 1973, repri-mands
have been issued in fifteen instances covering 21
inquiries.
During the July 1, 1987 - Jjne 30, 1988 fiscal year, the
Judicial Standards Commission met on July 10, October
16, December 18, March 25, and June 10.
A complaint or other information against a judge,
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the
Commission on its own motion, is designated as an
"Inquiry Concerning a Judge. "Thirty such inquiries were
pending as of July 1, 1987, and 98 inquiries were filed
during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a total
workload of 128 inquiries.
During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 1 1
3
inquiries, and 1 5 inquiries remained pending at the end of
the fiscal year.
The determinations of the Commission regarding the
113 inquiries disposed of during the fiscal year were as
follows:
( 1
)
93 inquiries were determined to involve evidentiary
rulings, length of sentences, or other matters not
within the Commission's jurisdiction rather than
questions of judicial misconduct;
(2) two inquiries were determined to involve allega-tions
of conduct which did not rise to such a level as
would warrant investigation by the Commission;
(3) three inquiries were consolidated with two other
matters in which investigations had been ordered;
(4) 14 inquiries were determined to warrant no further
action following completion of preliminary inves-tigations;
and
(5) one inquiry resulted in a recommendation of
censure.
Of the 15 inquiries pending at the end of the fiscal year:
(1) five inquiries were awaiting initial review by the
Commission; and
(2) ten inquiries were awaiting completion of a preli-minary
investigation or were subject to other
action by the Commission.
55
PART III
COURT RESOURCES
• Financial
• Personnel
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Under the State Constitution the operating expenses of
the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts)
"other than compensation to process servers and other
locally paid non-judicial officers" are required to be paid
from State funds. It is customary legislative practice for
the General Assembly to include appropriations for the
operating expenses of all three branches of State govern-ment
in a single budget bill, for a two-year period ending
on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. The budget for the
second year of the biennium is generally modified during
the even-year legislative session.
Building facilities for the appellate courts are provided
by State funds, but, by statute, the county governments
are required to provide from county funds for adequate
facilities for the trial courts within each of the 100
counties.
Appropriations from the State's General Fund for
operating expenses for all departments and agencies of
State government, including the Judicial Department,
totalled $5,715,172,032 for the 1987-88 fiscal year.
(Appropriations from the Highway Fund and appropria-tions
from the General Fund for capital improvements
and debt servicing are not included in this total.)
The appropriation from the General Fund for the
operating expenses of the Judicial Department for 1987-
88 was $ 1 6 1 , 1 28,433. (This included $2,532,298 for accrued
attorney fees for indigent defendants paid in July 1988.)
As illustrated in the chart below, this General Fund
appropriation for the Judicial Department comprised
2.8% of the General Fund appropriations for the operat-ing
expenses of all State agencies and departments.
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
APPROPRIATIONS FOR
OPERATING EXPENSES
$5,715,172,032
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
APPROPRIATION
$162,128,433
2.8%
59
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES
Appropriation from the State's general fund for operat-ing
expenses of the Judicial Department over the past
seven fiscal years are shown in the table below and in the
graph at the top of the following page. For comparative
purposes, appropriations from the general fund for oper-ating
expenses of all State agencies and departments
(including the Judicial Department) for the last seven
fiscal years are also shown in the table below and in the
second graph on the following page.
APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES
Judicial Department All State Agencies
Fiscal Year % Increase over % Increase over
Appropriation previous year Appropriation previous year
1981-1982 89,631,765 8.08 3,327,829,978 7.94
1982-1983 93,927,824 4.79 3,477,547,375 4.50
1983-1984 106,182,188 13.05 3,686,800,774 6.02
1984-1985 121,035,791 13.99 4,237,230,681 14.93
1985-1986 134,145,813 10.83 4,780,073,721 12.81
1986-1987 146,394,689 9.13 5,153,322,580 7.81
198